I definitely agree that using gaffs as a easy way out would be the wrong direction to go. I think gaffs come into play when it’s a better method for an effect than the sleight of hand version. If it cleans up an effect in a noticeable way then yes, I would go with the gaffed method. If both gaffed method and sleight of hand method looks exactly the same then I would say as a performer, you have the right to choose. However, if you’re using gaffs with the mindset of instant-presto-magic just for the sake of instant-presto-magic then most likely you’re not even going to bother to practice because you’re already in the mindset of this gaff doing all the work. In other words, it’s going to show through your performance, in a very negative way.

Michael Feldman also brings up a good point about gaining trust from your audience. As Tony mentions, we as magicians are lying through our teeth, what’s the most effective way to successfully pull off a con? By gaining the trust of your victims. Since Feldman brought up the WOW! gimmick, I had that once for two months or so. I had to construct the effect I was using it for in such a way that takes the suspicion away from the gimmick. At the end, the WOW! change became a secondary thing in the grand scheme of things as the effect became a signature transpo thing. That made me think “I might as well not have used WOW!” In a situation like that, I think a sleight of hand version for the change would’ve been the better way to go as you would be cleaner and you would not have the issue of having to justify this very odd looking card holder.

In the end I think John Carney’s introductory essay in Carneycopia explains it the best. One needs to look at the effect that they wish to accomplish and then find the shortest and smoothest path from point A to B to C to whatever. If a gaff needs to be incorporated to achieve that because it is superior to sleights, then use the gaff. If the sleight of hand method is superior, then use sleight of hand. The idea at the end of the day is being able to connect the different points using the BEST paths.

So, first, the child worker analogy is flawed, for several reasons. First, the products are almost NEVER the same. Generally speaking, the third world produced product is going to be inferior. So, in this case, which ever produces the better product is the "method" of choice (ethical problems aside). But lets assume, for arguments sake, that the products ARE the same… which brings us to the second point. Assuming both products ARE the same (unlikely as that seems) then the production method only matters if you know about it (can't feel bad about the kids if you don't know there ARE kids). So, assuming the layperson doesn't know the method, and both methods produce the same result, all that matters is the final product- which means any method is acceptable.

But, and here's what I really wanted to say- the product CAN'T be the same! Even if it's only minor details, it's details non the less. Subsequently I'm in the Don Allan school of thought: if it can be done with sleight of hand, I use sleights. If adding a gaff makes it BETTER, then I'm all for the gaff (A great example is the so-called McDonald's Aces. I've yet to see a better assembly, as far as overall effect goes).

B-dizzle.

So… I think it's about trust. Performers need to establish their skill before an audience will just dismiss anything you do as "just a trick." Once you perform a few effects that are clearly the result of sleight of hand and the audience begins to trust that you have the skill you claim to have, that's when you can (judiciously) thrown in a gimmick or two to really blow them away.

Do some really knuckle busting stuff, and then for your last trick, combine some sleight of hand with something simple like a shell, copper silver, or a double faced card and watch their jaws drop. If you start with that same trick for someone who has never seen you do magic before…. it just won't go over nearly as well.

First of all, you will have to carry around a lot of stuff while using gimmicks, which can be messy.
Secondly, it's just not clean. Spectator often want to check the cards and such, gimmicks sometimes does not allow that.

But then again, gimmick can provide what sleight of hand cannot. Though personally, I have a few gaff cards, but sleight of hand can never be replaced.

Been a follower of DF for a few months now, and I share most of your points of view, and the object of this post is certainly one of them. "Gimmickness" all the time will turn a card magician in a stage magician, where preparation is eveything. IMO, cards are the main tool for close-up and impromptu effects, so I'd quote you when you said "Work your craft" anytime. But let's not forget that simple gimmicks like different coloured back or doublefaced card can produce wonderful effects, and still show no contempt for the craft itself. My reference when I say this, is a fellow countryman, Helder Guimarães (FISM06 champ), who I've seen use those kind of gimmicks A LOT, and still he can still impress me. Well, just a humble thought.

Warm greetings from Portugal.

Although the result for a layman might be the same, whether we use a gimmick or not, their a substantial differences. First of all I personally do card magic for myself. Hence I don't see the point of using gimmicks. I enjoy practicing sleights (as every magician does).

Using a gimmicks implies preparation and therefore you can never been as clean as using pure sleight of hand.(You start dirty and end dirty most of the time).

I think it is legitimate to use a gimmick where our sleight of hand touches the limit, e.g. Svengali Deck. It is just impossible to achieve the same effect with pure sleight of hand, for the rest I will not support laziness. But I never use gimmicks.

Some people do take it too far though… expecting magic to be a "you buy it, you open it, you perform it" type hobby. As you can see in a lot of the tivo 2.0 variations where the creator puts in the title "improved version… better handling…" and they totally cop out doing the simplist shit (horribly I might add) because they can't to the cardini snap change variation.

But yeah… to the person that says a slip force is better than a classic force… HAHA. Yeah, anyway.