Talk:Gaffer tape

In my experience

In my theater experience, another characteristic of gaff is that it is easy to rip along one direction, which is really useful for pulling off quick strips. Anybody else? --Chinasaur 06:04, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

Yup, it's easy to cut a half-width strip and it magically splits in half. I added it to the article. Binba 23:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The big difference between gaffer and duct tape, in my experience, is that gaffer is heat resistant - if you put duct tape on lighting equipement it has a bad habit of melting and catching fire. --203.98.13.114 04:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Then you should be using electrical tape. Duct tape was designed for use with heating ducts, which also get hot, and that helps the glue stick better, but that kind of lighting generates much more heat, which will obviously melt it.

Hey, that's good. Find a way to work that in. I don't have much experience with US-style "duct tape", so the more differentiation that can be worked in, the better, I say. --Myk 16:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The tape is commonly referred to within the British military as 'black and nasty'.

That piece of information would probably be more suited to Duct Tape. I don't know about other editors, but I think that this page is best restricted to theatre/cinema usage. --Myk 00:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

But it's the same stuff!

Are you sure this is the same kind of tape? Gaff tape isn't so nasty... Binba 23:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In the US, few consumers are familiar with the term "gaffer tape" and tend to call it all "duct tape". (Those who are familiar with it, do regard it as a specialty product similar to, but distinct from, actual duct tape and identify it with the correct term. [However, they often disagree on just what those differences are.]) It has been my observation, however, that the situation is often reversed in the UK, and "gaffer tape" is frequently used colloquially as a general term in reference to both products (though, perhaps not to the degree that Americans neglect to distinguish the two products.) Again, this has just been my observation, based on discussion over the years with very few individuals. Starling2001 (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Home Depot

If you are looking for this in a home improvement store, asking for 'gaffer tape' will get you strange looks. (3M) Electrician's Bundling Tape/Electrician's Duct Tape is what you need. -HiFiGuy 22:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC) (speaking from experience)

No. That tape has a plastic base to it. Gaff tape is fabric backed. kmccoy (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup... but they don't sell it. In your local megahomestore, EBT/EDT comes close. -HiFiGuy 05:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Can't buy it at Home Depot. Ask a lighting company. In the US, Barzibon is good.

In Australia, home improvement centres know what gaff tape is. Have a look at some Australian duct tape--Myk 07:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Pressures sensitive

The article says "strong cotton cloth pressure-sensitive adhesive tape". What pressure sensitivity does this tape have? 89.240.60.214 21:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of tape is pressure sensitive. A pressure sensitive adhesive doesn't stick until it is pressed down. Compare to a contact adhesive which sticks on contact.--66.102.196.36 (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Use by Live Sound Engineers

In my experience with live sound, gaff tape is hardly ever put on a console as it does leave some residue. The small amount of residue is fine for cables but you don't want any of that stuff on your $40,000+ console. I think that the comment in this article about that is off, artists tape is the most commonly used tape to label a console. White gaff tape is used if nothing else is available, but it is not extensively used for sure. Anybody else want to comment before I remove that section of the article?--PM - PhilyG ^talk 04:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've only used masking tape and artist's tape. 71.102.122.130 03:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I accommodated this in a new edit. Binba 23:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

McGyver

Nothing about McGyver using it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HTMLCODER.exe (talk • contribs) 08:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

MacGyver used duct tape. oknazevad (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

is this necessary?

"Gaffer's tape is often referred to as a production expendable because it is discarded after the production process is complete."

Is it really necessary to say that? It's like saying "gift wrapping celophane tape is often discarded after gifts are opened..." or "After the fight, the tape that is removed from the boxer's hands is discarded..."

Of course we throw the stuff away when we're done with it. Why is it necessary to state the obvious? All adhesive material is discarded when it is used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.23.23 (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This snippet has been in the article for nearly six years so I suppose it's passed the test, which is surprising because it's wrong. As written, it implies that unused expendables are thrown out, which isn't necessarily the case. Expendables are so called because they are expended or consumed by use and must be periodically re-ordered. The designation exists as a budgetary distinction to distinguish expendables from durable equipment rentals or purchases. I'll make the change and add a citation if I can find one, which at first google didn't yield anything promising. --Threephi (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I've seen pictures of gaff tape used in poorer countries, where the stuff is literally put back on the roll for future reuse. It's typically much more expensive than your standard duck or electrical tape.Noderaser (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Gaffa tape sources

I've reverted the addition of four weak sources for the "gaffa" spelling - three were news items where the word was mentioned as part of a quote, and one was a mention of a cabaret act called Gronja the Gaffa Tape Girl. We need a source that specifically mentions the alternate spelling, rather than just using it in passing; these sources are indistinguishable from three typos and a copyright-avoiding stage act. --McGeddon (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Gaffa tape is a common term used in theater work. Gaffa tape is referred to several times in the book Stage management:The Essential Handbook http://www.amazon.com/Stage-Management-Essential-Handbook-New/dp/1854597345 and Feminist Theatre Practice:A Handbook http://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Theatre-Practice-Elaine-Aston/dp/0415139244/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_3. Are those good enough for you? I can get the page numbers. How about Oxford? - http://www.tabsareforflying.co.uk/venues/oreilly-theatre-keble/. Or a website of theater terms - http://www.stagespecs.com/pub_process/glossary_search.cfm?letter=G. I doubt all these places just spell the word wrong. - Josette (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that they were weak in one sense, however all those sources had to do was show that the spelling 'gaffa' tape is used - which they clearly did, (what with using it, and all). They were not intended to show the notability of the alternative spelling - that's not necessary. It may well have originated with a misspelling, but I have bought gaffer tape branded as "Gaffa" - there are a couple of examples here of people marketing it under that name.

Google books provides numerous examples - surely not all typos - of this spelling; also available in German; "Mit Gaffa-Tape kann man auch Auto-Sitzpolster oder zerrissene Jeans flicken". Quite. .   pablo_hablo. 16:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

An actual product label seems best; either that or someone specifically mentioning that "gaffa" is a common spelling in their particular industry or country. We should just be careful to avoid giving prominence to a very obscure spelling that only a few journalists or authors are making as a typo or misapprehension - Googling a typo is always going to turn up a few results, even in newspapers. --McGeddon (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Actual product labels, eh? As well as the ones I posted above, which it seems you may have overlooked, there are some more images here and here. Unless the labelling company made a typo.   pablo_hablo. 16:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I can hardly believe we have to go to this extent to prove something so obvious. Especially considering the references that are being used in the article now. Here is another - [1]. Plus where is the citation that proves it is ever called gaff tape or is that just a given? - Josette (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that all three newspaper sources are from countries where "gaffer" and "gaffa" would be pronounced exactly the same way, so that a reporter who heard the term for the first time would not know how to spell it, and might easily guess wrong. And we all know how often typos make it through newspapers' alleged "proof-reading". So I don't think they are reliable sources. As for product labels, they might be a good source if and only if they refer to the generic product that way. Use of "Gaffa" as a brand name would be evidence against it being a legitimate spelling. -- Zsero (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Pablo, Jack and I have all found acceptable references for for the term gaffa - a very common theater term, references as good as the article has now or better and I will add at least one for gaff - which is more of a slang term but used often. Thanks for all the hard work everybody. I notice you make no comment on the other refs we list.... - Josette (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

None of Jack's sources are even close to acceptable. Pablo's are a mixed bag; the German source is of course completely irrelevant, but the product labels do tend to support the existence of this spelling. Though I have in my fridge right now a tub of what its label calls "chic peas"; would you accept it as a source supporting a claim that this is a valid alternative spelling?! I haven't checked your sources yet, but at a glance they do seem to be the sort of sources that would be valid; they certainly seem to be a cut above those provided by Jack and Pablo.

One note about all these sources: they nearly all seem to be from the UK, where such a misspelling can be expected to be common; the question then becomes at what point does a misspelling become so common that it becomes a valid alternative? It would seem to me that such evidence should be sought in UK dictionaries. As of 1998, "gaffa" was not to be found in the Chambers Dictionary™; give that whatever weight you think appropriate, but please do consider it. Certainly if someone has a later edition and says it's there, or finds it in some other reliable (i.e. not wiki-type) dictionary, that would be a great source. -- Zsero (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so know, the term gaffa is more common in the UK, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. I'll use the books as references. I also liked the Stage Specs website [2] which used both terms as did one of the refs [3] supplied by Jack. Thanks - Josette (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, all of those are places where such a misspelling can be expected, since it sounds exactly the same as the correct spelling; therefore on one hand sources from those places should be treated a bit more cautiously, while on the other hand such a misspelling can spread enough in those places to become a legitimate regional variant. IMHO the place to look for evidence of that is in respected dictionaries of regional English, e.g. Chambers for the UK or Macquarie for Australia. I reported earlier about the 1998 edition of the Chambers; I can't find my Macquarie, which in any case is also from the '90s. -- Zsero (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources have now been added - I'm not sure I see it the same as you. I doubt you would find the word 'gaff' in any dictionary yet I found a good reference for the word. If you do find the word gaffer in a dictionary - it probably refers to a person not the tape. I think I have done as you asked and was really quite cautious and diligent in my search for reliable references. I know someone who might have a copy of Macquarie. I will ask them to look up the word. That's about all the more I can do. Thanks again. - Josette (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

A dictionary should have both senses. -- Zsero (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What happened, here? I offered 'Common UK usage; the original, really' when I first restored the bit about 'gaffa tape' being one of the names for this type of tape. I posted a Google link when I put it back after being reverted. That link gives me 236,000 hits which is very good indication that this term is in common usage. This should have been the end of it. A few more Google queries using quotation marks should clarify the ambient usage of these terms online.

Google says

glink	ghits
"gaffer tape"	425,000
"gaffer's tape"	28,500
"gaff tape"	29,300
"gaffa tape"	111,000

All this article is asserting about these terms is that they are all used and a cursory search supports my initial claim. Handily, this article links to Gaffer (filmmaking), although it does not cite a source for the assertion that this is, in fact, what this tape is named for. Curiously, that article refers to the origin of the word 'Gaffer' as being British. The English language has just tons of words that originate in that part of the works; see England. If this article were attempting to make more specific claims about the etymology of these term, I would expect more robust sources to be cited.

The article goes on to assert that:

Chris Martin of the band Coldplay is known to wear this on his fingers during performances. Also Stewart Copeland of the band The Police used Gaffer-tape to protect his fingers during studio recordings, pictured on the backside of "Zenyatta Mondatta".

These assertions may be true; they may not be. Who's to know? They are uncited. And more important, they are trivial, and I don't see them as appropriate to mention in the article, true or not.

Pablo says that he has significant experience with this tape. Me, too. I've worked as a lighting electrician, as a lighting designer, as the technical director. I was also in management. I've probably used a thousand rolls of the stuff. Gaffer tape and Gaffer's tape are more formal terms and Gaff and Gaffa tape are both very, very, common idiomatic usages. We have easily twenty sources floating about and some of them may offer other tidbits that could be incorporated into the article beyond the insipid issue at hand. Can we move on, please?

@Jo;) we do have the definition at wikt:gaff, several of which seem applicable here; this whole sideshow was a bit of typical wiki-silliness and if it goes on much more people are going to need a gaff to get the trout off the side of their head.

See also

wikt:gaffa

Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No issues - I removed the trivia ;) - Josette (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

OED

I cut the numerous sources back to one source, the OED. Anyone wishing to discuss is first pointed to WP:RS. It's best to use as few sources as possible, and to use as reliable a source as possible. Since the OED lists "gaffa tape", I hope your edit war can now cease. Hiding T 13:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the OED does cover this cromulent term, but...

Sign in

The Oxford English Dictionary Online is a subscription service. Access to the Dictionary is only available to users with valid licences.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The OED is available in most major bookshops, and anyone with a library card in the UK can access the online version. We don't prevent people using print sources simply because someone else can't access it, do we? Hiding T 13:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Again no issues - as long as the common terms stay. - Josette (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being there; I was fine with omitting such a trivial cite. I was more irked at their business model. DYK... that you can make a wallet out of gaffa? ... that gaffa can prevent fire exit lights from ruining blackouts? ... that gaffa can be used to tie people to trees?

Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You're covering exit lights that are ruining blackouts? Man, you're opening your show to injury and death, and yourself to lawsuit. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Not me, but it is done ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet, I almost went looking for you to see if you wanted to help sort this dilemma but it seems to be sorted for now. - Josette (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

...but what about the trees? ;) Jack Merridew 19:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The trees lived and the people were satisfied. ;) - Josette (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Unless we're going to start adding (copy of the book required) to paper sources, I don't see why on earth someone added "(library card login or subscription required)" when this isn;t the case if you own a copy of the book or go to a shop and buy it. Unless I am missing something... Hiding T 16:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"No matter how one spells it," he sighed, "not even gaffer tape can fix my once-trusty steed now"

I added that - I've seen it on other pay-per-view references - it was only to indicated that you need a subscription to view the URL. However, it's somewhat moot now as the pic I added from Commons clearly gives the name as "Gaffa".   pablo_hablo. 17:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The picture doesn't make it moot; labels can misspell words just as easily as anyone else. I can show you a label for "chic peas"; would you claim that proves that's an alternative spelling? Of course not. All it proves is the appalling extent of illiteracy. -- Zsero (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It is possible that your peas are extremely stylish. I agree with you that "Gaffa tape" most likely originated as a misspelling, and it's not one that I use or care for. However it is in common use, it is in at least one dictionary, and it belongs in the article.   pablo_hablo. 17:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine. But the label doesn't prove that; the dictionary does. -- Zsero (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless of course the dictionary, as well as all the other newspaper and book sources, contains the same typo - oh wait, that would still show common usage, wouldn't it? And the function of the article is not to endorse or disapprove varieties of spelling, but to record them.   pablo_hablo. 22:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The dictionary would show that, because it's the editors' business to seek out new usages and document them, and make a professional judgement on whether they've become part of the language. The first requirement of dictionary editors is that they actually know how to spell in the first place! Manufacturers often have no clue how to spell, it's not their job to adjudicate on spelling, and they're not competent to do so. By the way, here's my threatened photo of some fashionable legumes; I took this at the supermarket. -- Zsero (talk) 08:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Gaff tape sources

re the above section: this usage is similarly unsourced and should be removed. I have used Gaffer tape regularly for much of my working life both in professional and domestic situations. After all, it has a dark side and a light side, and holds the universe together. But I have never purchased it under the brand name of, or heard it referred to as, "Gaff tape".  pablo_hablo. 21:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't challenge "gaff" for one reason: it is clearly distinguishable by ear from "gaffer", so if someone heard it called that it would be reasonable for them to put it in the article. The basis of my challenge to "gaffa" is that I think people who spell it that way are the same people who routinely just rite down whateva sounds rite. -- Zsero (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is one book that refers to gaff tape - Careers in Technical Theater [4] see page 97 it is mentioned more than once in the book and there are other sources too. - Josette (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

More on uses.

The article does not seem to mention that a principal use for gaffer tape is to affix ultra-light film/video lighting instruments (such as many Lowel Lights) to walls and other surfaces. Lighting manufacturers supply metal plates with short mounting posts for lights. The post is gaffer-taped to a wall or other difficult surface. By far the most useful application of the tape's peelability, is from painted location walls.Jim Stinson (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm a complete wiki-scrub, but in honor of the late great Philthy Animal Taylor, can we mention the usage of the tape in 1980 to fix his [Phil's] hand with gaffer tape to enable him to drum on tour with Motörhead after he smashed up his hand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.196.222 (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Type of adhesive commonly used?

Article states both:

"While related to duct tape, it differs in that it can be removed cleanly because it uses a synthetic petroleum-based adhesive rather than a natural rubber adhesive."

and

"The adhesive used is a high quality synthetic rubber which leaves little or no residue when removed and typically does no harm to whatever the tape is applied to."

So which is it? If both types of adhesives are used shouldn't the first instance be edited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.1.193 (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I came to this talk page to ask the exact same question. Any sources for either of these conflicting statements? 66.249.93.61 (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Nearly-full revision, and citations added

I gave this article a complete once over for clarity and flow, and added citations. Not completely finished but at least it mostly makes sense now. --Threephi (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Origin of gaffer tape cut from lede

I have removed this for now, pending further research, but paste it below to preserve for future edits. There are multiple issues with it, foremost that the broken link in the citation (working link here: [5]) mistakes it with the very interesting story of the invention of duck tape (later known as duct tape) during WWII. The invention of gaffer tape is less clear, but Lowel Inc. claims to have done so in 1959 (see [6]) and [7]).

The second half of this passage states unsourced info, and is misleading as it gives the false impression Permacel tapes are no longer being produced (they are now sold under the Shurtape brand).

The original manufacturer was the [[Permacel]] division of [[Johnson & Johnson]],<ref>{{cite web|title=Where did gaffers tape come from?|url=http://www.buytape.com/where_did_gaffers_tape_come_from.shtml|accessdate=15 September 2015}}</ref> and until the brand's discontinuation by the current owner, was both the preferred brand and a [[Genericized trademark|generic reference]] used in the film, stage, and TV industries.

--Threephi (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Change the source cited in the first sentence

The second source used in the opening paragraph (https://www.shurtape.com/search/products/technical?f%5B0%5D=field_product_market_list%3A529) does not support the claim mentioned ("It is widely used in theatre, photography, film and television production, and industrial staging work") and doesn't actually show any gaffer tape products; that page is about painter's tape, packaging tape, duct tape, and other tapes that are not gaffer tape. This source from the same website (https://www.shurtape.com/markets/arts-entertainment/gaffers/) more adequately supports the claim. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Reply 29-JAN-2019

  References updated  

• References are not necessary for the lead section if they are provided in the main body of the article, per MOS:LEADCITE.
• The references for the article have been updated, although not with the suggested Shurtape source, per WP:NOTPROMO.

Regards,  Spintendo  22:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)