Talk:Clackers

I'm old enough to remember the clackers. I was actually very good at it and very upset when my mother took them away. Because they did ban them at first. After a court case. They outlawed them. The glass would chip after so much use. The chips would end up in children's eyes. Causing damage. this is why they were removed. Then, they canceled making them. You might still find some articles in the Lowell sun in Lowell Massachusetts Pollard Memorial Library. They have archives in the lowell library. No promise its still there. It's been since early seventies. Hassling Hunting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B028:2637:B08A:A43A:93C9:BFAF (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Banned? (And the glass story)

I've changed the word "banned" to "discontinued" -- can anyone find evidence of legal banning of clackers? Also I've deleted an assertion that they were made of glass, because there is no evidence other than an anecdote. Cactus Wren 13:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Does hard acrylic have a tendency to shatter? Because that's what happened back when they were around. And Ontario Canada banned them after that. (Thus the assertion they were made out of glass)

Yes, it does. That's why they were taken off the market, because they were unsafe. (Can you provide a reference or link to specific legislation banning them from being manufactured or sold? It would make a good addition to the main article.) Cactus Wren 07:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The somewhat famous "U. S. v. AN ART. CONSISTING OF BOXES OF CLACKER BALLS" case describes them as hazardous and contains a bunch of references, for anyone who may want to dig a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.191.248.113 (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no, it doesn't. If you take for example poly methylmethyacrylate, one of the most common acrylic polymers used in moulding applications, it doesn't shatter at all, it can break, but it breaks into large fragments which is not indicative of "shattering" at all. I would imagine the hysteria about clackers "shateering" is more nannying media hype. Far be it from me to contaminate it with facts. SimonUK 12:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As this article doesn’t even manage to get the description of the operation of the toy correct, it leaves a lot to be desired! The ring wasn’t put over a finger - it wouldn’t work if you did, it would just rotate around the finger! The ring didn’t even have to be a ring at all - it was sometimes a flat piece of plastic, like a sort of dog-tag! You had to hold the ring between thumb and fore-finger, with the strings protruding at the tip of the thumb, and then proceed to have the balls knock together. In this respect it was like a newton’s cradle, more than a bolas. Once that motion had been established, movement of the hand up and down allowed the balls to be made to strike harder and faster, until they did indeed start to meet above and below the hand.

As to shattering, they could indeed shatter and break (SimonUK if you have some technical reason against the use of “shatter”for plastic breaking into pieces as force is applied, please do illuminate, but otherwise it looks like hair-splitting to me). This was probably due to imperfections in manufacture, and the use of inappropriate materials, because at the height of the craze they were being turned in the millions, and were obviously open to the cheap knock off merchants like any other craze - such as the copy Rubik’s cubes which also broke because of the cheap manufacture. Acrylic might have been hard enough to stand the forces, but there was nothing to say that the ones which broke were acrylic. There were reports of children and adults being hit in the face and eyes, and a reported death led to trading standards having them removed form sale in the U.K. As to the glass story - well anyone who ever saw clackers in action would know that there was no chance of them ever being glass. Why the fact that Ontario’s apparent banning of them is a justification of this nonsense, beats me.Jock123 (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

SimonUK if you have some technical reason against the use of “shatter”for plastic breaking into pieces as force is applied, please do illuminate, but otherwise it looks like hair-splitting to me.

I don't know whether he does, but I do. In the industry (and I assume you are familiar with it, given your arrogant wording) "shattering" and "fracturing" are distinct in that the former relates to breaking into many distinct smaller pieces, whether the latter simply relates to the formation of a discontinuity caused the application of physical force. It isn't hair splitting, its called "precision". Suggest you try it. Rob (25 years as an R&D manager in the plastics industry).

I don’t hold that my wording was arrogant, but you are obviously entitled to your opinion. Secondly, the precision you so snittly refer to is what I was asking for, and you haven’t actually addressed that part. I am aware that there are precise technical uses of the terms (as I am also aware that they can also be used interchangeable beyond technical circles), what I am questioning here is the objection to using of them, when it still appears to apply to the conditions being described. Given that you have defined the terms, is the use of “shattering” incorrect? It was clackers in use “breaking into many distinct smaller pieces” (small fragments entering eyes, and flying into faces) which was a major concern (along with head injuries from children hitting each other with unbroken sets), so “shattering” sounds like what it was. This may contradict the identity of the material from which they were made, so maybe a better description is required, such as “Clackers made of [material X] would have been safe as it is shatterproof, but reports of the toy in use breaking into many distinct smaller pieces suggests that some sets were of a different material.” Jock123 (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

While some may feel that this is an urban legend, I can vouch for it. Not only did I have set, my cousin had to be taken to the ER to have glass fragements removed from his eye because he was rough with them and they shattered.THEY WERE NEVER GLASS. BBC NEWS STORY https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/915992494587895809?lang=en Even as a kid of 11 or so, I remember the ER doctor being appalled that anyone would sell children a toy made of glass. Now I will say that the ones I had may well have been knock offs because we got them from a booth at the State Fair. And I don't know that this part of it was ever investigated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.34.191.100 (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I’ve found a place on the Internet offering a reward for anyone who can produce a pair of glass clackers, as opposed to clear plastic - they still buy and sell vintage clackers and parts, and say that they have been a collector since the seventies but have never yet come across an actual pair of glass clackers, or even evidence of their existence, so if you still have yours or pictures, the matter could be settled. Hope you manage to find yours! Jock123 (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I used to have a pair of glass clackers, in Germany in the early 90s. They were never played with, because it was such an obviously dangerous idea!

(They had no brand label or anything, so I have no idea who made and sold them.) Mantelmoewe (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

They were never made of glass, at least not in the UK, where I grew up. They were made of acrylic polymer, I am not sure which acrylic, probably PMMA. However, it is certainly not factually correct to claim that acrylic polymers "shatter". The term "shatter" means to break into many small pieces, and acrylics specifically do not exhibit that property. If they fracture they tend to break into a much smaller number of large pieces (and not into sharp shards). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.161.166.105 (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Dispute on Neutrality

I don't know about this statement "...and really who wants to play with balls who shatter?" I'm going to add the Neutrality warning. Geosultan4 00:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to assume that's a joke and change it. There's no reason to leave it in the article, after all. I'll remove the neutrality warning as well, as it's no longer needed. 76.11.137.152 13:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC) They were not made of glass, it was hardened plastic. They originally came in the colors of blue, red and green. They were packaged in a plain plastic bag the a fold over label of yellow. I had an original set when they first came out. Another toy that came out at the same time was string-ball. That one I have a picture of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.159.108.143 (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Broken clacker ball.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27748767@N08/4744411630/ Dug that up in my garden June 28th 2010 and instantly recognized it. (I'm old...) The Q-Tip is poked into the remains of the drilled hole where the string was originally secured. Bizzybody (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

2 cm in diameter?

The ones I knew were twice that big, as shown in videos here:

• www.squidoo.com/clackers-klackers-klick-klacks (sorry, spam filter is blocking the link)
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=73Y1moGnbLk
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FMwV62qwoGY

2 cm is more like the miniature ones from the '80s. Not R (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

File:ClackersBLUE.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ClackersBLUE.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Revised or different 'Unbreakable' or 'Shatterproof' materials

A variant of the toy branded as Miracle Klackers had a television commercial specifically advertising they were new, made of "unbreakable," "shatterproof" plastic and "wouldn't shatter."

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTB5tsHkCj4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kool kitty89 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Bird-scaring clacker

The bird-scaring clacker in the history section bears no similarity, other than that it clacks. This clacker is either a ratchet/football rattle or slapping paddle affair or the like. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Anachronistic

The part of the article mentioning JoJo's Bizarre Adventure says their appearance is anachronistic, as "Battle Tendency" takes place in 1938 isn't necessarily true, since they didn't become popular until the 1960-1970s, but were first patented in 1932 5 years before Battle Tendency took place.--108.14.232.217 (talk) 06:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Homemade Clackers

My mom had some large clear heavy balls that had holes through the middle of them. They were part of a common decoration that were assembled to resemble a bunch of grapes. They would be wired together and attached to a price of driftwood.

My friends and I made our own homemade Clackers out of this common decoration. They were heavy. We just knitted string to hold the ‘clackers’ In place. They were great. They were very loud, very heavy and you used them in the usual way. I had bruises all over my 11 year old arms. I don’t recall any of them shattering. What I do remember is possibly worse. More than once, I was witness to one of these 2” diameter balls flying off the string. One hit a glass coffee table and broke it. The other time, the ball hit a wall indoors. Had the clacker hit one of us in the head, I’m quite convinced, one of us would have been dead. Crabitha (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Vandalized?

Seriously what the hell is going on on that main page.2601:2C5:C600:9C20:C804:B3C4:D4A9:23B (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)