Hello, Mark,
First of all, consider instead of making the deck with USPC, why not enter it in our design contest sponsored by Expert Playing Card Company? The winner has his or her deck printed by EPCC at no charge and receives 36 dozen (3 gross) decks. The prize decks alone are more than seven times your original Futura Black print run. Use the links in my signature, below, to read more about it.
Now, the below comments are critiques of specific aspects of the deck design. They aren't personal attacks, and I'm not trying to tear down your design and say it sucks or whatever. It's my personal observations and advice - as the designer, you can take it or leave it as you see fit and I won't be the least bit offended if you pass on everything I say. When criticizing a design, people here do so from their love of playing cards and not out of a personal agenda.
You're calling the deck "Interference" - presumably based on the concept of broadcast interference when using a television to tune in a channel using an antenna. But that kind of interference is horizontal rather than vertical. And are you going for an old-school "snow" effect, or the more modern "frozen and missing pixels" effect of a digital broadcast with a weak signal?
From a practical standpoint, putting your suits next to your values in the indices rather than beneath them is not a good idea - it forces a player holding a hand of cards to spread the cards wider, increasing the chances of an opponent getting a peek, either accidentally or intentionally.
It's an even worse idea to use alternating red and black faces printed into the bleed. With the cards held in a stack, it's usually possible to spot red and black cards from the edge of the stack if they're printed like this. Either choose one color for all of the faces or give them some kind of a uniform border to prevent this.
Where's the back design? Many collectors will buy a deck or not based on its back design. Will it also be printed into the bleed or will it have a border? Whichever uniform "edge" you choose for the faces, you should choose a matching one for the backs. Magicians prefer a design that matches from front to back like that because you can hide a flipped card in the middle of the deck, a key element of certain magic tricks - if there's a great enough mismatch, the flipped card becomes visible.
You're using the "Futura Black" typeface, very similar to the "Army Black" font from the default font selection in Microsoft Word. Why the choice of a common typeface such as this for the indices? I know you created your pips based on the typeface, but how does it all tie into the design concept of "interference"? Have you considered the creation of a unique typeface, or perhaps an artfully-altered version of Futura Black? If someone choose a common typeface like this, it can give the impression that they didn't put enough thought and talent into the design, much like a typist using Times New Roman or Helvetica on a letter because it was the word processor's default font rather than choosing a style to match, contrast or complement the firm's stationery.
I think you're trying to make a deck that's both minimal and more complex at the same time by using the simple face design and smothering it under what appears to be something like static on a video screen. The two concepts appear to be at war with each other, almost like the riot of flavors one would experience when trying to combine a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich on white bread with one made with corned beef, sauerkraut and deli mustard on rye. You may wish to consider either going with the simple and minimal or the complex rather than both at once.
Bear in mind - the "rules" above are guidelines based on observation of practical playing card designs over the years. As with any design rule, an artist/designer can feel free to break them - but generally they should be broken only if it serves a specific purpose in the design rather than for no special reason other than not knowing the "rule" existed. And you don't want to break too many "rules" at once.
There are decks that serve specific artistic visions that break many of these rules - they're not the easiest decks to play or perform with, but they possess a degree of artistry that people find appealing, and thus these decks find their own audience.
(Read 2392 times)
