Behind the product: The evolution of the paper clip

Published 17th August 2026

How a simple piece of wire became a design classic

Few everyday products are as instantly recognisable as the paper clip. Small enough to disappear into a pencil case and inexpensive enough to buy by the box, it is easy to overlook. Yet its development offers a fascinating example of how materials, manufacturing and user needs can shape a product.

The story begins in the nineteenth century, when offices needed better ways to keep papers together. In 1867, Samuel B. Fay was granted a US patent for a bent-wire fastener, primarily designed for attaching tickets to fabric, although the patent also described its use with papers. It looked very different from the paper clips familiar today.

Other designs followed, but the familiar double-looped form eventually became known as the Gem paper clip. Its exact inventor is unknown, and the design itself was never patented. By the late nineteenth century, it was sufficiently established for William Middlebrook to patent a machine for manufacturing wire paper clips in 1899.

A lesson in effective design

For design and technology teachers, the paper clip provides an accessible way to explore why some products stand the test of time.

Its continuous wire construction uses relatively little material, while its shape provides enough spring and grip to hold sheets together without piercing them. Students can investigate these properties through practical activities, comparing alternative shapes and considering criteria such as strength, material use, ease of manufacture, cost and usability.

The story also challenges the idea that innovation always means making something more complex. Countless alternative paper clip designs have been developed, yet the familiar Gem form remains widely recognised.

For teachers, it is a useful reminder that some of the richest design and technology learning can begin with the simplest everyday objects. A paper clip may be small, but it provides a practical starting point for asking a much bigger question: what makes a design successful?