On May 13, 2015, Slackerking wrote:
Not really. A trick can be gimmickless but not impromptu. A trick can be impromptu but have a gimmick involved. The issue is not everyone will agree. I'm going to use Nicholas Lawrence release Something out of Ordinary as an example because I've been using it a lot and because his release Reduction is the basis for this thread. Monte Matches is a fantastic match Transpo effect where you need to make up a gimmick to perform the effect. Once done, you can carry around the gimmick and the trick is impromptu. However the first review I saw of this slammed him because the reviewer felt it wasn't impromptu. There's probably no right answer here. One could argue that almost anything physical required to perform a trick is a gimmick, or not. It's all perception.

On May 13, 2015, Slackerking wrote:
A trick can be gimmickless but not impromptu. A trick can be impromptu but have a gimmick involved.

On May 14, 2015, Saturn UK wrote:
In open forum we obviously have to be careful what we say so as not to expose a method.

In the case of Reduction the ad copy claims no gimmick required.

Reduction works with normal cards but you have to do something to those cards with another item to make this work.

The item I used is an item we sell in the shop.

The item is not strictly a gimmick but something a lot of magicians have an use, but many will not have this and will have to go out and buy it.

An example (not used in this trick) would be roughing spray is that a gimmick?

In another recent release the gimmick is a black pull string bag nothing else, its hardly a gimmick you can buy these almost anywhere if you look around, another gimmick some time ago was a length of plastic tube you can buy in most pet shops for a few pounds at most.

When advertising a product many producers put includes DVD and gimmick but the gimmick supplied is just an everyday item like the bag.

This adds some mystery making us wonder what it could be, is it something special they've come up with.

In reality it pushes the price up as we could source the item cheaper, but the supplier is in a no win situation as if they don't supply the item they get complaints that people can't find or obtain the item.

I think in magical terms a gimmick is any item used to accomplish a magical effect, it could be butter, salt or whatever but as magicians we like to think that a gimmick is a prop that has been constructed specially.

This is where we often feel let down when there is no special gimmick supplied just an everyday object.

To sum up in the case of Reduction the fact you just don't use normal cards and something else is required I would say that something else could be described as a gimmick.

Had they supplied the item (which they could have done easily and cheaply) they would have advertised with gimmick included, so I've just answered my own question the item is a gimmick!

Gaff vs. gimmick is a very interesting question. Because most writing in magic is done by people eager to share ideas, who are often not skilled writers, definitions and usage of magic jargon are often loose. Even careful writers can slip, through bad habits, when using these words. I'm guilty of this as well. The best distinctions I'm aware of were formulated by T. A. Waters in his excellent Encyclopedia of Magic and Magicians.

Thomas defined a gaff as a common object that has been physically altered in some secret way to bring about a magical goal; e.g., a stripper deck.

He defined a gimmick as a secret device never seen by the audience, which contributes to a magical effect; e.g., a reel.

To these two categories we should add a third: the fake or feke. Thomas defined these as visible devices, but with secret natures or uses that are unrecognized by the audience; e.g., thumb tips, mirror glasses. He judges feke as "an obsolete and affected spelling". I would differ with him on this point. I think this older spelling helps to differentiate the specific meaning of the word within magic's literature from the broader meanings understood by the public. I wish he were able to debate the point with me.

As with most things, there will be exceptions; items that can be plausibly put into more than one of these three classifications. But Thomas’s definitions provide excellent guidelines.

On May 17, 2015, J-Mac wrote:
Here's an interesting post by Stephen Minsch in the Hermetic Press's forum:

Quote:

Gaff vs. gimmick is a very interesting question. Because most writing in magic is done by people eager to share ideas, who are often not skilled writers, definitions and usage of magic jargon are often loose. Even careful writers can slip, through bad habits, when using these words. I'm guilty of this as well. The best distinctions I'm aware of were formulated by T. A. Waters in his excellent Encyclopedia of Magic and Magicians.

Thomas defined a gaff as a common object that has been physically altered in some secret way to bring about a magical goal; e.g., a stripper deck.

He defined a gimmick as a secret device never seen by the audience, which contributes to a magical effect; e.g., a reel.

To these two categories we should add a third: the fake or feke. Thomas defined these as visible devices, but with secret natures or uses that are unrecognized by the audience; e.g., thumb tips, mirror glasses. He judges feke as "an obsolete and affected spelling". I would differ with him on this point. I think this older spelling helps to differentiate the specific meaning of the word within magic's literature from the broader meanings understood by the public. I wish he were able to debate the point with me.

As with most things, there will be exceptions; items that can be plausibly put into more than one of these three classifications. But Thomas’s definitions provide excellent guidelines.

I added the Bold emphasis to his definition of "gimmick".

Jim