For those that have this set (I am considering), can you tell me how easily the coin un-n*sts? Really, do they all un-n*st easily and smoothly?

Yes they easily un**
The weight is perfect

How well does the outer [ cover everything?

Very well, but be aware inner most coin is quite thin in my opinion.

No sh*** will completely cover a coin unless its been thinned down to fit. However, the drawback is the coins will clearly look awkward un-ne**** when looking at their rims.
I have a second run 3CF from 2010 and the innermost coin is a fl***er with a full size looking rim (no cut down, perhaps because it’s a gaff fl***er than just a regular coin as in the 3CM). The un-ne****** is very smooth with just lifting.

You can probably go online and find a video of Dean Dill performing it.I know when the video came out I got a bunch of phone calls because people knew I was friends with Dean and they wanted to know how he was doing the trick . Mr Dill played a big part in schoolcraft development.

It's basically a 3 coin nest.
The magnetism is just to keep things from flying apart when (gently) tossed from hand to hand.
As for coverage - are you talking dollar or half dollar size?
Dollar size will always look better as the thickness of the rim and face have minimums they can't go below, and those will be a smaller percentage of dollar sized coins than halves.

Sorry, but that's not accurate.
Mark Mason's "deep dish" ones give near 100% coverage, as do Jeff Copeland's recent ones made for his Tiger Tan coins. I've also got an old Kennedy one that had a new rim added on vs "expanding" the coin,so these things have been around.

The tradeoff there is the nested coin is thicker than the others when viewed on edge, vs having a thinner insert. Choose whichever works best for you.

I second that statement of (in)accuracy.
All of the options are possible, it's just about tradeoffs.
Side coverage? You can thin the coin, or you can widen the [, but then the two won't be the same thickness when next to each other. You can make them the same thickness, but then you have to compromise on coverage.

Same thing for "stretching" the face - you can expand the whole thing, or just do the rim, to reduce distortion. You could also reduce the insert.

Will spectators be looking at them together more often when they're separated or combined? That might inform which kind of discrepancy is more important to mask.

Here’s a performance, with the Triple Threat not the 3CM but hope this gives food for thought…

https://youtu.be/e8dYtSsdzGk

With this routine, edge views don’t really come into play but I guess it’s how you intend to use your gimmick.

For those who own this set, does the set make any sound when tossing from hand to hand?

Very nice routine

No, it doesn't make any sound at all

I agree. I owned both Schoolcraft 3CM and Lassen's TT. Both were dead silent when tossed from one hand to other. I performed quite often with these gaffs and that was one of my first observations in addition to coverage.

As for coverage, the original TT and 3CM's did not have "full coverage". I do not believe they were designed to be burned from the edge angles when all 3 elements were fully nes..d.

Here is point of comparison (using what is more common knowledge about typical sh..ls (unexp.., exp..., and double exp....).

The 3CM that I owned was a soft milled down Morgan and contained a very thin in.ert. The first sh..l was unexpanded and (when nested) was nearly undetectable as a gaff to a lay person (yet still not with 100% coverage). The outside most sh..l was expan..d and yes it was detectable as a gaff when nested fully. However, angles were better as compared to the TT.

The TT that I owned was made from uncirculated Morgan's so its not exactly a one for one comparison. However, the ins..t was a standard size Morgan, the first sh..l was expanded, and the outside most sh..l was double expanded. It was a higher quality manufactured coin set, but looked much larger as a "coin" when fully nes..d. You could say that the angles were a bit tougher with the Lassen TT given the double exp.....d nature of the design.

Depending on the audience environment, I would perform using 3CM if my angles were extremely wide. I used TT if the angles were less wide with fewer spectators. So it depended on the performing environment and just how I felt about using which gaff at that moment.

I could be wrong, but I recall reading from Schoolcraft's website years ago that he had made available a double expanded version of the 3CM (similar to TT). His website offerings appears to be less from recent years.

caL

I use my TT all the time in my close up set. Angles are not an issue at all due to the shells and the much thicker nature of the insert - the thickness of the insert is for me what makes the TT the better option.

To clarify,I use the TT in mix and mingle situations (spectators within a few feet of me) and also at the tables too.

... and needless to say, using it along with secret servante. :o)

caL

You must be a mind reader LOL!

My understanding is that that's the difference between the 3CM and 3CMX - whether the outermost turtle is expanded or if both inserts are reduced.
Reference: https://coingaffs.com/collections/3cmx-variations

I can't speak to the TT, since the only one I ever held (briefly) was quite a while ago. I thought it was single- for the outermost, not double- expanded, but I very well may be misremembering. Or maybe he made both kinds.

simplymagicweb: for an additional data point, which way is yours?

Here a little video of my Triple Threat - hope this helps

https://youtu.be/uLvIF4z-HIo

Thanks For the video Sean. I stand corrected. Obviously My memory is not as good as it use to be.
This means my old 3CM sh..ls (both) were unexp….d and un-unexp….d.