I also prefer the Skinner version, but believe this is a strong in-the-hands version.

I trust Larry's judgement and will revsiit it. But, I like throwing the cards on the table. You can do a psudo hype move with the Skinner version and come darn close to the street version.

Personally, I love Bloom's Visible Monte. Never had any angle problems at all.

There are some ultra-visible phases in the routine that are hard to top with sleights alone. For example, phase 4 where the card is tossed on the table and changes in a blink to the other card the moment it hits the table.

I'm sure it can be duplicated with sleights, but I don't think it would look as clean.

I've smoked a room full of magicians with Visible Monte. Got credit for a lot greater sleight of hand ability than is actually in my possession.

And I humbly accepted the praise.

I also learned how to construct the gimmick on my own, so I have spares.

I remember when this first came out, I did it all the time. I think its better than skinner monte which I think is good but a bit overrated. I also always loved sidewalk shuffle.

Blooms is best for visual impact, Harry anderson's for authentic feel (the one with the index) Dave neighbors Joker monte has a lot of bang for the buck and is probably the most underrated monte effect.

I also enjoy Mike Roger's "Unconquered Card".

One thing about Visible Monte, (those who own it will know what I'm saying), you, never, never, never. I repeat NEVER have to worry that they will be able to find the money card!

If you were a dishonest person, a scoundrel, you could surely rake in bucks with this on the street.

Where can one get Bloom's Visible Monte?

Kevin james carries it:

http://www.kjmagic.com/catalog/effects02.html

I was surprised to see this post again...dredged up from 10 years ago! I use to carry this with me all of the time. As with many monte effects (as seen in public restrooms at the county fairs for instance), you are performing this with spectators watching from above, therefore you need not worry about the thickness. As I recall, the gimmick was ingenious at the time...actually still is

I've performed this many times for seated spectators, and the thickness isn't an issue as long as you tilt your hand just a bit so that mostly the backs instead of the edges of the cards are facing the spectators.

I think for the doubters, I'm going to film the instant vanish and post a link. It doesn't get any more visual than that. Just a blink, and the card vanishes as they hit the table.

I think it's awesome. But, most recent stuff, twizted by Eric Jones is better

Link?

Daff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_mpYvyQ0yw

Thank-you!

Just a follow up on this. I placed an order on December 6th 2013. I still have not received the order nor have any of my emails inquiring about my order been answered. Consumer beware!

To my knowledge, the effect is out of publication and has been for a long time.

I've been constructing the super clever gimmick for years, and I can make one "in my sleep"'

So I never run out! Because I still love this effect after all these years. I filmed a brief video of my hands performing the "vanish to the table" phase. Looks like real magic!

As I may have mentioned in this thread, I once smoked a room full of magicians with this. Got credit for impossible sleight of hand skills , which I humbly accepted.
Devilishly clever of me, eh? Heh, heh, heh!

I don't know much about 3 card monte, but I say that Gaetan Bloom's version is far superior than Skinner's one. Because in the latter, there are 2 cards that can't be examined and you always have the three cards in your hand and don't let the spectators touch any one of them. With respect to Bloom, there's 1 card. Still, there's an easy way to give the impression that all the cards are normal. In Bloom's version, the gimmicked card hides the red card (in my set I have 2 normal nine of spades with the last nine of spades which hides the jack of diamonds, and a normal jack of diamonds; yes you get 4 cards, not 3, although you do the 3 card monte with 3 cards only). Yes, the gimmick is the thicker card, so you can feel it in your hands.

I prefer to start the trick with the gimmicked card in the middle. I show the cards face up, and I do the "movement" that reveals the jack, between the two nine, I then turn over the cards. They say it's in the middle, I reveal it (don't let them touch it), they are wrong. Then, I say pick another card, and I let them pick one of the two other cards. Wrong again. They believe the last one must be the jack. I mixed the cards, and I let them picked that last one, and wrong again. With the cards still face down, I place the gimmicked card at the bottom, then I turn over the card (and the gimmick is at the top), and I do the movement, and they see the jack between the nine. I put the cards face down, this time the gimmick is at the bottom, but they say middle and I let them pick that one, they are wrong. At this point, I am ending the game (although you can continue if you want). But before showing them that all the cards were in fact nine of spades, I do a magical gesture (in order to make it convincing).

More recently, I added a little extra in my routine. What I do is that I start by showing my him*** wallet, which contains a normal nine of spades. Then I do the trick and when I finally reveal the three cards were in fact nine of spades, I reveal what's inside the wallet : the jack of diamonds (I take it and place it in the spectator's hand so he can examine). I say they have switched places.

It's been one month since I have it, and until now I have mostly done the trick in front of people in my workplace, and no one never asked me to let them examine the cards. I'm surprised. I usually have comments such as "I sweared I saw the jack of diamonds" or "where did the jack go?".

I think it's fair to let them touch the cards multiple times. They have the feeling they are normal, and that's a fair game. You don't have to say, "check them out to see whether I'm cheating or not", and I simply let them pick the card they choose. As you give them the opportunity to touch the cards, they won't believe you have something to hide. It's more convincing in my opinion.

If you damage the gimmick (i.e., by folding it accidentally), which may be fragile (depends on how you manipulate the gimmicked card), I think you can easily make another one. And you don't know any sleight of hand. The price seems a little bit steep, but honestly, for what you get, how fun it is, I think it's not that expensive after all.