How do you use your coin gaffs ?

Are you subtle or are you blatant when using coin gaffs ? Meaning for an example when DavicRoth performs coins across he performs what I class as subtle magic which is strong and has the benefit of no suspicion on the coins, then there is Eric Jones for example who performs what I would call blatant magic which is strong and visual but there is suspicion on the coins.

Another example would be that you place two coins in either yours or your spectators cupped hands and a coin vaishes which is subtle or do you place the coins under a glass and then swirl the glass around to make the coin vanish openly which I would class as blatant.

Have you tried both and if so does one play better than the other, if so have you tried it on both easy and skeptical spectators as you never know what type of spectators you are going to get if using coins as an opening effect ?

It depends on the effect.
I do Roth's coins across, but also like Double Deception which is a more overt use of the gimmick in play.
When performing CSB routines I use James Lewis' change that uses a purse palm which is very close to being fully on display. I've toyed with the idea of the handling I've seen some use where you toss the gimmick onto the mat for a no cover visual change. I'm on the fence as to whether that would reveal what's in play or whether it would look like real visual magic. The construction of the CSB takes a bit to wrap your head around. Don't give them too much time to dwell on what they just saw and it could fly.
Same idea with Eric Jones dropping an open [/ into a spectator's hands. They'd need to wrap their head around how that could even be constructed and work but they're too surprised to think because they just saw one coin disappear in front of their eyes. Make it quickly reappear elsewhere and it's harder to focus on the one event.

A lot of words to say to use gimmicks in ways that work effectively.

Thanks for your input.....I agree 100% that it might take a spectator a bit of time to wrap their heads around some of the visual changes especially as they don't really have much time to think about them, however I do think that afterwards they will jump to the correct solution if the gimmick is used as openly as Eric does in the drop vanish.

When you perform the change taught by James Lewis in his CSB routine there is just enough cover I believe to take the heat off the coins and the nature of the gimmick make it more difficult for the spectators to get their head around compared to the gimmick Eric uses which I beleive is way more obvious..... That said I'm probably thinking like a magician because I have never tried such open vanishes myself hence my original question.

First of all, I don't think my use of, or opinions on, gimmicked coins is so important to the magic world. I have been a pro in the past, but my businesses force me to focus on business and to do magic on the side for fun, now.
However, it is very hard to define how openly you use gimmicks versus how much subtlety you use for gimmicks.
But it is a very good topic. There are some downloads with the chinese, silver, and brown coin gimmick that basically
do the effect 5 or more times in "different" ways. Some gimmicks can be figured out more easily than others. The CSB is a very deceptive gimmick, but my choice is not to overdo the effect. I prefer to do it once and make it very dramatic. I think it is pretty easy to learn that if you overdo the use of a gimmick in a routine, some spectators will be convinced they have figured it out.... For me, then, it is better to underuse a gimmick and to over dramatize the effect, than too much repetition. Also, I love to palm gimmicks, to let spectators check out the coins, and to switch the gimmick IN, before starting. This seems to make miracles happen a little easier and is not too difficult, since you haven't started and this is not expected!

You make a good point countrymaven I also think that when performing a multiple phase routine it has to build rather than just repeat the same effect/phase.

whilst not set in stone three is a sweet spot for the number of phases but as long as it builds and depending on the routine you might get away with more.

A good example being a ring and rope routine or an ambitious card routine both of these lend themselves to an extra phase or two as its easy to make each phase build and look different to the phase before it which helps to conceal the method.

Sure, I just meant that in general. I don't follow a hard and fast rule, Warren, my friend!
So one rule I am very sensitive to, of my own, is if a spectator thinks they have figured it out
but can't verbalize how it works, to them it is as good as figuring out a trick. Even if they don't know the mechanics and how they work, in their mind, they "saw" the gimmick do the same thing too many times and perhaps the magic is gone to them. so I definitely keep my repetitions in a routine below this bar.

Like in my other arts, I play with elements.
Sometimes I reinvent the wheel,
other times I find something that pleases me
both my audiences and myself.

Well how do I use my gaffs ? you mite look in one of my books !