Sandwichroutine and 2CM without a deck!

Jun 13, 2013
237
1
Germany
Hey guys,

please take a look at my 2 videos:
sandwich routine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n8zrWvJc10
2CM without a deck:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_EvE4X5cJY
Please tell me what you think and although my plot for the sandwich routine is rather stupid, I felt it at least justifies the ditch of the deck in the back pocket. Do you have any recommendations for a better presentation of this routine?
And what do you think about my approach of the 2CM without a deck? I have no idea how to justify that I reach in my back pocket to get the deck (is needed for dichting the other 2 cards.), do you?
Cheers
Philipp
 
Nov 24, 2013
122
1
I like the idea for the 2CM trick. Maybe you don't have to use it for two card monte but maybe for a transpo from one pocket to another. I don't know I'm just saying what comes to mind at first but I will think about this next time I'm in the shower.
 
Jan 11, 2013
168
2
Dubai
The first video isn't to bad. I love sandwich effects and have done a lot of work on them to developed my own routine. My best bit of advice is if you are going to put the aces ontop of the deck after removing them from the deck (which in my opinion in most sandwich effects is the weakest point) you need a justification for doing that otherwise there is no reason to do it. So either find a reason that makes sense (a in transit action maybe?) or think of other ways to achieve what placing the aces ontop achieves (trying not to tip the method here so hope that makes sense). Also I would think about losing the deck vanish. There is to much attention on those cards and where the deck should be so it's pretty obvious that the deck is gone before you 'reveal' that its vanished, i don't feel it add's anything to the routine.
 
Jun 13, 2013
237
1
Germany
@slicksleights
What would be your justification for putting the aces on top?
I could possibly try out some sandwich load's by Daniel Madison from his book "Anthology". But I know what you mean :)
 
Jan 11, 2013
168
2
Dubai
In my routine there are 3 phases the first phase has them on top anyway and the card appears between them imagine a ACR going under the top card. I wont go into the full routine here, but basically after that the card don't have to go back to the deck and all the work for the other 2 phases are setup during the phase(s) that come before. Basically the point I'm trying to make is think about the structure of the routine as one option to get around the problem.

Simpler way would be a in transit action, so as a example you have a spectator look at one card you take it back and then let them have a look at the second one and when you need to take back that card you could place the first card they were looking at on top of the deck to free the hand to take back the second one. Then using a move from Eric Jones's sandwich effect you transfer the decked 'ace' with one hand to the other and your set. So basically the audience only ever see one ace on the deck and this is justified because of the natural action of freeing the hand to take back the second card. I hope this makes some sense, and its just one idea from many, but if it doesn't and you want to discuss more pm me.
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results