To gimmick or not to gimmick?

[The_Logical_Magician]

Hey guys, it's fun to be a part of the community again (I think I haven't been active for like 6 months or so), so anyways, let's get the topic rolling.

What's your opinion on gimmicks?

That's a bit brutal so let me add some nuance:
I personally rarely use gimmicks, I love being able to perform an effect whenever someone shows up with a deck of cards and it generally proves to be more hard-hitting when it's completely examinable at the end.

BUT ...

I find that some of the most "magic feeling" effects use gimmicks. If any of you have seen performances by Helder Guimaraes, you'll know that his effects are particularly appealing since he combines a very subtle and strong effect with very intriguing and imaginative patter. He does however use gimmicks in some (if not most: about 60%) of his effects.

Now, in order to somewhat guide this thread, let me at least add this precision: I'm not talking about one-trick gimmicks like random magnets and special cards which allow you to perform a single effect (those are just horrible, they cost alot, and they are very limited in what you can acomplish with them).
What I mean are double-backers, double-facers, blank-face/back cards.

So I'll ask again: what do you think about using gimmicks in your effects?

Ps: if you want to see what kind of gimmicked card effects I'm talking about, check out Helder's red mirror dvd excerpts such as:
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeUqhx7kBv4
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39XD4...eature=related

[Travmang]

I prefer to forego the use of gimmicks for a few certain reasons. Although I agree that the use of gimmicks can produce some amazing tricks with cards and/or other objects, but I feel that ungimmicked tricks are much more amazing in that it's all done through skill rather than some gimmick doing the work for you. Just my thoughts!

[The_Logical_Magician]

I totally agree. I love learning and using sleights in magic. But sometimes some effects are really good since they combine these sleights with some gimmicks which allow a very clean image of the trick.
If you watch some of Helder's performances, you'll see that buying the double-facer (f.i.) is the least of your problems when trying to learn the effect.

[OliveroG]

It simply depends on the construction of the effect, i say: "If it's better with a gimmick, use it", remember that magic is not about the method but the effect it produces, if you can do an effect that looks truly magical with a gimmick, then do it, gimmicks sometimes can be good, i personally don't like them, but sometimes i just need them in order to accomplish some effect i really want to do.

When it goes to Gimmick Vs Sleight of hand, yes, sleight of hand gives you more prestige among magicians, and sleight of hand can make miracles with completely examinable objects, but gimmicks can also make miracles, easier, and with much less risk; i say, combine them, just like Helder does, those effects use gimmicks, but also really strong pieces of sleight of hand.

[la0o9]

well, in my opinion, "Use what you can", if you are able to produce an awesome effect with just sleight of hand, do so. If it's sloppy, put some practice into it. if there's no other way than to use a gimmick( this includes one-shot kinds as well as utilities), then by all means go for it.

i personally like SoH more, since it gives me something to play around with, and it's also impressive to other magicians when i do them, but spectators don't really care about the method, so if there is a chance, i'd just pull a stripper deck out and do whatever i do normally except the spectators themselves get to shuffle the card this time, and that one minor detail makes it so much more mystifying.

P.S: i keep at most 2 special card gimmicks every time i perform in the back of my wallet, just in case i'm in the mood, but i mostly am not.

[Mark]

I'm on the side that if something is either a lot more magical, or impossible to do without gimmicks, using them is all fine.

For instance, a classic 'Two Card Transpo' in the spectator's hands without a gimmick is a lot more troubling and less magical as it doesn't allow you to perform the effect as open and magical. But an 'ACR' with a 'One Way Force Deck' is just being lazy and therefore a no-go (unless you use the force deck as a kicker, of course).

But.. apparently this topic is more about gaffed cards rather than gimmicks in general. Doesn't change my view on them, but yeah, there is quite a difference.

[KGaborMagic]

I only use gimmicks when the effect can be more magical with them. I don't use them just to make my work easier, that would be laziness.

[Fin]

Some card gimmicks are awesome and allow for some incredible effects. However personally at the moment I prefer to concentrate on learning tricks that can be done with any borrowed deck of cards because as much as I do magic for other people's enjoyment, the main reason I am doing it is for the challenge it provides for myself. If I were only thinking of the spectators I would just go around constantly doing the Invisible Deck and the bill switch, but, quite selfishly, I look for a balance between my enjoyment and theirs. So I think it's down to the individual. Go for it and use as many or as few gimmicks as you like, as long as you are enjoying it and so are your spectators.

[The_Logical_Magician]

Hey thanks for the insight! I must confess that I am a sleight freak , I just love learning advanced, deceptive sleights and using them in my routines, but some times I have some effects which even though only rely on sleight of hand, contain some gimmicks. Here's what I mean:

I have my own handling on a blank deck routine which doesn't require helper gimmicks, in the sense that even though there are blank faced cards, they are shown in the end and all is examinable.
I have also created a very simple routine where four cards continuously change: they're first all jokers, then they are all double-backers, then they are all aces of spades and finally they prove to all be blank faced cards (it's basically a false count bonanza ).

The problem with these effects is that it renders the spectators aware of the existance of such cards. Many laymen don't even know cards are sometimes printed with both sides as backs or with a blank side(s). It might even ruin the effect for them since they start to suspect almost anything (mostly absurd "anythings", but anything).

So in my opinion, impromptu card effects are number 1 by far. But some gimmicked card effects can really be worthwhile so one shouldn't eliminate these from his arsenal. On the other hand, if I've learned something during performances, it's that to keep spectators interested and to keep your image clean you must:

-either use gimmicks that remain undetected and that you may ditch during your intermittent phases;

-either, if performing with shown gimmicks, take a new deck after you've finished with your gimmicks and hand it out to the spectators so they know that they're moving on to clean magic (something they find way more intriguing).

-or of course finally option 3 which is to burn all your gimmicks, although that's a bit harsh.

So let me know what you think about these ideas and until then, see ya.

PS:
@Mark: I did once use a one way deck as a ACR and it was so funny !!! I was lucky since my spectator had a rather low IQ though LOL. (But don't get the idea that I'm lazy, that was just for fun and as a test ... or was it?)

[Mark]

Please be careful with the use of the word 'gimmicks' though. You may want to use 'gaffs' when you actually mean gaffs (= f.i. modified cards). Gimmicks always remain undetectable, for that if they are not secret, they cannot be called gimmicks anymore.

[The_Logical_Magician]

oh, thanks so much Mark. I don't have much experience in card nomenclature, so please, everyone, feel free to ask questions about the terms I'm using and correct them when something seems fishy. You're absolutely right, I did mean gaffs, so I guess the real question is:
To gaff or not to gaff?

[Des]

The only gaffs I really use are a double backer in my wallet (ending to an ACR or a Card to Wallet) and the one required for The Sculpture (I just love that trick). You can see how strong those are in Albert's live performance. I like them because they both have powerful impacts and they both require only one gaffed card, so they're easy to clean up. More than one gaff card, especially a gaffed deck, is just not my style.
Also, I thought The Sculpture was the only trick that used a gaff on Red Mirror (I haven't bought the DVD, so correct me if I'm wrong).

[ouncesmusic]

I use to love the moving pips gaff. Might resurrect that one. It would be nice if they took the Aura card and changed it into a moving/appearing pips like an AD to 5D. To me, it makes more sense.

[Wyattsb]

Really the only Gaff I use is blank face card with 'this', 'that' and the 'other' written on them, obviously for This, That and the Other. Though I don't really have any issues with other gaffs, I just don't use them. When the spectators don't know the method, a gaffed monte routine that is slightly better than a clean one, for example, shouldn't make a difference.
I don't really have a problem with the use of real gimmicky gimmicks either, but they tend to be a little plain or boring, like those very one trick limited gimmicks, something like Rapture. However great magic can be done using somethign versatile with something like Invisible Thread or an Invisible deck, actually if I owned an invisible deck I would probably use it a lot. I think it all really depends on how you want to define gimmicks and different kinds of gimmicks.