Thanks for the feedback! I understand what you mean about making sure each pip is 50% red or black. I haven't revised the court card pips in a while. I'll try to add some more black and red to them respectively. The number cards are all at least 50% red or black (though the 10's are close).

You're both asking to see more - what more do you want to see? Are all my images not showing? I've posted all courts and aces, backs, tuck box, jokers, and 2-10 from a variety of suits. I could post the complete 2-10 from all suits if you'd like. I'll try to put those together to post for tomorrow (the designs are already complete, just need to create some .pngs).

Afrank8, how would you suggest toning down the backs? Maybe make the lines a bit less heavy? Or maybe make the shapes bigger so there are less layers? I think part of the problem may just be the way that image looks on this site. I've had a sample printed of nearly an identical design, and in hand it doesn't look quite so busy. It looks like most patterned backs.

If for some reason all the images I've posted here aren't showing, you can also see them here: http://alphavbeta.net/sample.html

• Remove the pips from the joker.  The colors used are off-putting and the center design alone is enough to convey the design theme.  Plus it's better to leave pips off of a card that traditionally has none - it reduces the chance of some fool who didn't look closely from confusing the joker with something of a different value having a suit.
• Your back design is indeed busy - the tiny size can give one a headache.  Take a Bee playing card with the standard "Diamond Back" design.  Going vertically, you can count from top to bottom and find eight pattern repetitions from end to end.  Your deck would look better with the same number, as measured from top to bottom in a straight line along the shortest available diameter.  On the plus side, a pattern such as yours is likely to create an "optical illusion" effect when the cards are spread, making it difficult to spot where one card ends and another begins.  Card sharps and magicians like to use designs like that for hiding certain bits of sleight of hand better!
• If you look at the indices in a standard pack of cards, you'll see something interesting - the value is generally twice as long as the suit pip, and both are of equal width.  Even with the letters chosen, unique changes were made to allow this - many numerals and most letters have serifs on them to make them wider if they were narrow, but the "10" is little more than a stick next to an oval, allowing the two numerals to occupy the same space as one does on the other cards.  This standard index style evolved because it was the easiest for card players to work with and recognize.  I would reduce the size of the index pips and play with the width (and for the "10", the kerning) to have your indices conform to that standard.  Additionally, I'd recommend using the pip in the Ace indices for all of the cards of the same suit - it's the simplest design of all of them, and indices of all things on a card really need to be standard in order to improve functionality.
• Speaking of pips...  Your diamond is fine, but the remaining three too closely resemble each other.  I recommend giving the spade and club a more distinct "base" at the bottom of the pip, and perhaps even separate the three lobes of the club, similar to a Parisian deck, to give it more visual distinction from the spade.  I've provided two examples in the images below.  One more closely resembles an International standard deck while the other is certainly more distinct as a Parisian standard deck.  Note that the second image labeled "clubs2.jpg" looks more like a carefully trimmed piece of topiary - you need not go to that extreme, but in the present design, the overlapping circles of your club make it too similar to the spade.

Thanks for the feedback everyone! I really appreciate it.

• I understand what you mean about the Joker. I think it's a good suggestion. I have some more revision to do to the deck as a whole, and plan to make a couple other minor changes to the Joker design before I post a revision.
• I've tried a couple different scales for the back design. I think I prefer the first one I've posted here, but I'd be interested to hear what those who found the first design too busy think.
• Your notes about the index make perfect sense. It's amazing how sometimes you look at something forever and overlook such a significant design element. I will definitely adjust the index to that standard, but I want to nail down the pips before I get around to adjusting the card designs as a whole.
• I had been considering using the Ace indices for all the cards. I was worried the existing designs were made of lines too thin and close together to be printed, though I was hopeful. USPCC confirmed that they might cause problems, so I plan to switch to using the Ace pips as you've suggested.
• I have adjusted the design of my pips to maintain my design intent while further differentiating each pip as suggested. I've posted some process images below for some feedback before I go through adjusting the full set and mocking up complete cards. Let me know what you think.

Thanks!

Once again I have updated the images in my first two posts. I have chosen a new font for my indices, made some subtle changes to the courts, and revised my tuck box design.

One item I have not brought up here before is the one way back. You can see two variants of the back here: the 1st image attached to this post is a one way back, the second is two way. I believe the one way is subtle enough that it won't interfere with normal game play, but it could be useful for certain tricks.

If you haven't spotted the one way yet, if you draw a line from the center up, you'll see the line always intersects the center of a shape. If draw down, you'll see that in two instances it goes between shapes. I'm curious how you guys feel about this type of one way back. Should I eliminate one of the one way rings? Should I use a different ring as the one way ring?