Author (Read 9018 times)

rjtomlinson1977 · « **on:** July 16, 2015, 04:18:25 PM »

It was pointed out to me that the printer I used for Gettysburg and the Bradford County History deck had a staple deck that was 100% just like the Bee deck (except for the name of course). I brought this to their attention and the were very ashamed of this fact. They asked me if I would be interested in redesigning their staple deck to set it apart from Bee but at the same time keep a classic look. For the design I wanted to have the classic Red/Gold and Blue/Gold options like you see with Aristocrat Playing Cards, Bee Playing Cards, MPC Playing Cards and countless other staple decks. I also wanted to create a honeycomb shape in the middle that would interlock with other decks placed side by side. Here's what I came up with....

rjtomlinson1977 · « **Reply #1 on:** July 16, 2015, 04:20:15 PM »

Here's what their current deck looks like...

Don Boyer · « **Reply #2 on:** July 16, 2015, 10:00:22 PM »

The Bee Diamond Back design is one of the most commonly-forged decks in the world. There are the outright counterfeits, Bee brand name and everything, even fake ad and guarantee cards - many even come with a calendar from the early 2000s. Then there are the lookalikes - like these - that imitate the box design and back pattern but have at least somewhat more original brand names. It's nice that these guys opted to change the design around into something more original.

So, where are the pictures of the card back?

rjtomlinson1977 · « **Reply #3 on:** July 17, 2015, 09:16:53 AM »

Here's what I came up with so far. Of course this isn't set in stone yet so it may change many times.

Don Boyer · « **Reply #4 on:** July 17, 2015, 11:27:14 AM »

Quote from: rjtomlinson1977 on July 17, 2015, 09:16:53 AM

Here's what I came up with so far. Of course this isn't set in stone yet so it may change many times.

You should talk them into letting you make the design with a border of some kind - either a hard white line border or a "fade-to-white" Stinger-style border. With a pattern like this, if it's not cut very, very precisely for every single deck, you'll end up with a one-way pattern, something that a sneaky gambler will combine with edge sorting to get an edge over their competition. (Just ask Phil Ivey and the Borgata Casino!)

NineLives · « **Reply #5 on:** July 17, 2015, 11:37:15 AM »

I like the way the back 'moves' when you scroll the image

Looks nice and clean.

My only concern is if printing/cutting isn't exact - you may get some shifting on the honeycomb... though there may be printers who can manage it...

*wave*

ETA --- sorry, seem to have been typing while Don was posting Didn't mean to repeat...

rjtomlinson1977 · « **Reply #6 on:** July 17, 2015, 04:10:12 PM »

Here's an updated version of the blue deck. I felt the deck needed something. The printing company suggest honeycomb in the middle but I couldn't think of a good way to add it. So, for now I put pinstripes on there to kill off some of the white space. I also put a white border around the back design. They are working on their registration (centering) but they're not 100% where they need to be. They just hired a new print manager, Mr. Dong, (

) they hope will get them to near perfect registration.

Don Boyer · « **Reply #7 on:** July 17, 2015, 06:48:34 PM »

Quote from: rjtomlinson1977 on July 17, 2015, 04:10:12 PM

Here's an updated version of the blue deck. I felt the deck needed something. The printing company suggest honeycomb in the middle but I couldn't think of a good way to add it. So, for now I put pinstripes on there to kill off some of the white space. I also put a white border around the back design. They are working on their registration (centering) but they're not 100% where they need to be. They just hired a new print manager, Mr. Dong, ( ) they hope will get them to near perfect registration.

A Stinger-style fade-to-white border will hide many sins... If the registration is off but only by a little bit, the less distinct border edge will help to conceal this. It also looks cool! The more gradual the fade, the better is will hide a small error - but nothing will hide a big error.

You could also make a version that's like some of the Madison decks - a honeycomb hex surrounded by white space in a pattern on the card back.

rjtomlinson1977 · « **Reply #8 on:** July 17, 2015, 09:46:41 PM »

Yes, that does look nice. I'll give it a try and see what I can come up with.

rjtomlinson1977 · « **Reply #9 on:** July 17, 2015, 11:44:17 PM »

Here's my first attempt at faded edges. It was harder then I thought since Illustrator doesn't have a square gradient. I'll probably try to get it to look better down the road.

Don Boyer · « **Reply #10 on:** July 18, 2015, 01:49:28 AM »

Quote from: rjtomlinson1977 on July 17, 2015, 11:44:17 PM

Here's my first attempt at faded edges. It was harder then I thought since Illustrator doesn't have a square gradient. I'll probably try to get it to look better down the road.

Yeah, that's not quite there just yet! You need somewhat more fade. Even on the Stinger cards, the transitional area isn't very large at all, but there's a distinct transition, though there is also a point where it appears to stop as a hard line. Note as well that the corners have a very shallow, larger curve to them than the hard-cut corners of the die line/card edge. There's more white area in the corners. This is most likely because the Stingers pattern was originally designed for casino use and it got its name because there were miniature oval-shaped "Bee" logos in each of the four corners for the Bee Stingers - Aristocrat Stingers replaced the Bee logo with an oval containing each of the four suit pips. That corner never usually saw the light of day, as it were, since it was usually covered with one of those logos, so T11 probably improvised just a little when they created their logo-free version.

As far as I know, to date, T11 is the only company that has been given use of the Stinger design by USPC. They were definitely the first to make Stingers that weren't casino decks.

rjtomlinson1977 · « **Reply #11 on:** July 18, 2015, 07:23:38 PM »

Now on to the court cards. Of course, in the looks department you won't see much difference... but this was redone 100%. If you look close enough you'll see a few changes but mainly a cleaned up version of the Kind of Diamonds. The one on the left is what they're currently using and the one on the right is the updated one. Oh, yeah... I forgot to add his hand. That was a mistake. He'll have it back soon enough.

Worst Bower · « **Reply #12 on:** July 18, 2015, 08:25:26 PM »

Will the new design use security ink? I'm guessing that's their plan since it uses darker hues.

rjtomlinson1977 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 18, 2015, 09:19:57 PM »

No plans for security ink. I just prefer darker colors. But these are all subject to change. I'm half tempted to make this set of courts available within the creative commons. I'm tired of seeing Frankenstein versions of courts being used by everyone and their brother. I personally wouldn't mind giving these to any who would find good use for them.

Don Boyer · « **Reply #14 on:** July 19, 2015, 12:23:35 AM »

Quote from: rjtomlinson1977 on July 18, 2015, 09:19:57 PM

No plans for security ink. I just prefer darker colors. But these are all subject to change. I'm half tempted to make this set of courts available within the creative commons. I'm tired of seeing Frankenstein versions of courts being used by everyone and their brother. I personally wouldn't mind giving these to any who would find good use for them.

USPC's courts are actually public domain. Many decks copy those courts. The copyright on anything older than 1923 has expired, guaranteed, because of how US copyright law is written and those are considered "non-unique" elements of a deck of cards - in other words, attempting to register them as trademarks would be akin to registering the alphabet as your trademark or patenting the soup spoon - it just doesn't fly.

I think you might have misunderstood what Worst Bower meant when referencing "security ink." Casino decks will often use that darker shade of red, almost a crimson shade, for their deck faces. It's because of the advent of the security camera - on a black-and-white camera, the standard red of most decks is too bright and appears as a pale gray, nearly invisible, while the deep red appears as a much darker gray. As the cameras were upgraded to color models, the deeper reds were still the easier color to read on-screen than the bright reds, so the tradition remains to this day to use dark reds on casino decks. Some refer to this as "security ink" because of how the darker shade was developed for use by casino security when trying to track cheating from the "eye in the sky" video camera array. A properly-designed casino is laid out in a way that you couldn't sneeze without someone in the security room saying "Gesundheit!"

Because it's popular on casino decks, some deck designers use them on they playing card designs, T11 being one of the chief proponents of this. Honestly, I find it easy on the eye than the "clown nose red" of a standard USPC deck.

rjtomlinson1977 · « **Reply #15 on:** July 19, 2015, 01:04:04 AM »

I see. I learn something new everyday.
By no means was I planing on trying to trademark. I meant to freely give my AI files... which would be unheard of. What vector files that are out there are of the rough line images like shown on the left side of the example above.

Worst Bower · « **Reply #16 on:** July 19, 2015, 03:11:35 AM »

I thought you added security ink because the new box says "Casino Grade" while the old one didn't. By having a perfectly symmetrical back pattern with faded borders as well as security ink, the new deck would definitely be considered casino blackjack quality. That's something you might tell your client.

Don Boyer · « **Reply #17 on:** July 19, 2015, 05:06:58 AM »

Quote from: rjtomlinson1977 on July 19, 2015, 01:04:04 AM

I see. I learn something new everyday.
By no means was I planing on trying to trademark. I meant to freely give my AI files... which would be unheard of. What vector files that are out there are of the rough line images like shown on the left side of the example above.

That's just a slightly modified USPC face, really. A few details removed, a few details added, but essentially the same. The clothing pattern is nearly identical, even if the colors are different.

Quote from: Worst Bower on July 19, 2015, 03:11:35 AM

I thought you added security ink because the new box says "Casino Grade" while the old one didn't. By having a perfectly symmetrical back pattern with faded borders as well as security ink, the new deck would definitely be considered casino blackjack quality. That's something you might tell your client.

Often, when one sees "casino quality," they're thinking more of the quality of the paper and the coating rather than the ink pattern. Honestly, it's a bit of a misnomer, since off-the-shelf Bees are labeled "casino quality" when we might argue they are anything but, these days.

As far as the edges, any casino in their right mind these days has stopped using those print-to-the-bleed card backs in the first place. Just ask the idiots over at the Borgata that ordered their cards from Gemāco without inspecting them first for poorly-cut edges... Gemāco had another major screwup recently when they distributed "preshuffled" decks to one casino that were anything but, and a handful of players were quick enough to spot it before the dealer and the floor manager did.

All the Borgata needed to do was have a deck back design that had a white border and that was evenly cut all around. Lacking that, even with a one-way back, edge sorting could be easily foiled by having the dealer flip the cards around now and then when dropping them back into the shuffler. Stupidly-simple procedures that were ignored, and now the casino's crying in court that they want their money back... I can only imagine how far the last player who tried that got!

One way or another, you want a back that isn't easily edge-sorted. A bordered back is easier to spot when poorly cut and requires slightly less precision to cut, unless your players are examining your cards with magnifying lenses and microscopes.

NineLives · « **Reply #18 on:** July 19, 2015, 10:02:52 AM »

Interesting read about colours and edges

Wonder how often that sort of thing happens (sortable decks ending up in casinos)?

My preference would have been a 'clean' edge (i.e. white border), though I can see the advantage of having a non-defined edge... could be interesting to see a deeper fade on the Honeycomb back

Don Boyer · « **Reply #19 on:** July 19, 2015, 11:34:32 PM »

Quote from: NineLives on July 19, 2015, 10:02:52 AM

Interesting read about colours and edges Wonder how often that sort of thing happens (sortable decks ending up in casinos)?

My preference would have been a 'clean' edge (i.e. white border), though I can see the advantage of having a non-defined edge... could be interesting to see a deeper fade on the Honeycomb back

Casinos pick all kinds of designs, whatever it takes to make players happy and free with their cash. High rollers get the most attention - and the most concessions. It's why the Borgata fouled up so royally in so many ways - the gambler, Phil Ivey, allegedly requested a specific deck design, their purple deck, which he may have realized had an off-center cut, thus making edge sorting possible. He also requested a specific dealer, one that spoke Chinese (he had a Chinese man with him, supposedly an accomplice) and that the dealer use the shuffler for their game instead of "washing the cards" by spreading them all over the table and scooping them back up, the most random way to mix a set of cards known - though some mathematicians are starting to theorize that there is indeed a pattern to even that type of shuffle from dealer to dealer. The game played, if memory serves, was a variant of baccarat - I think that while the gameplay is closer to that of blackjack, it may only use a single deck, more like poker, allowing one to try some attempt at divining odds of a particular draw.

But as I said, the smarter casinos ditched the print-to-the-bleed or "borderless" patterns or and now use either white borders or a Stinger-style fade-to-white border. There's other factors to consider for this as well - edge chipping, which can occur naturally in use or intentionally by player abuse, is another factor that a white border is not as seriously affected by. It's why everyone loved the cool look of a black deck of cards in the beginning, when the custom deck resurgence began, then a few years ago they suddenly fell out of favor - they showed edge damage way too easily, suddenly going from looking cool to looking beaten and worn before their time, and people realized there are other cool patterns out there that don't suffer from the same problem. One can conceal the damage with a marker, but it's only delaying the inevitable - and the deck's performance tends to take a hit with all that marker ink soaked into the card edges.

NineLives · « **Reply #20 on:** July 20, 2015, 02:43:32 AM »

Truly fascinating, thank you

Things have definitely come a long way (on both sides) since the old-olden days of 'scraping away' the 'n' on the old Knave to acquire an additional King

I just assumed that there was a 'set' type of deck, which perhaps varied (i.e. branded backs or similar) between different casinos. It does make sense to keep players interested, though I guess they need to be 2 steps ahead, pre-empting how a deck could be edge-sorted or otherwise - before it happens

Don Boyer · « **Reply #21 on:** July 20, 2015, 09:25:10 AM »

Quote from: NineLives on July 20, 2015, 02:43:32 AM

Truly fascinating, thank you
Things have definitely come a long way (on both sides) since the old-olden days of 'scraping away' the 'n' on the old Knave to acquire an additional King

I just assumed that there was a 'set' type of deck, which perhaps varied (i.e. branded backs or similar) between different casinos. It does make sense to keep players interested, though I guess they need to be 2 steps ahead, pre-empting how a deck could be edge-sorted or otherwise - before it happens

While many casinos do order simple, "pre-designed" decks from a selections of backs and faces, some will arrange for custom designs - I have a great one from the House of Blues Casino in Atlantic City, a rarity in that it's the only Gemāco deck I've ever owned that handled reasonably well! A full-custom job is more the exception than the rule - unique backs happen now and then, particularly at the more successful casinos that have the money to spare for custom work, but faces are usually completely standard. By that, I mean "casino standard," which for paper decks will usually be "Tech-Art" faces or something similar. They use a special design that (combined with a specially-placed mirror built into the blackjack table) allows a blackjack dealer to know if he or she is holding blackjack without having to flip over the cards they were dealt.

rjtomlinson1977 · « **Reply #22 on:** July 20, 2015, 04:43:36 PM »

Here's all the updated Kings for the Swarm deck. I still need to make a few adjustments with the pips but overall I'm happy with the results.

Don Boyer · « **Reply #23 on:** July 21, 2015, 02:23:12 AM »

Quote from: rjtomlinson1977 on July 20, 2015, 04:43:36 PM

Here's all the updated Kings for the Swarm deck. I still need to make a few adjustments with the pips but overall I'm happy with the results.

I like how the eyes look. The King of Diamonds looks like he's missing something without that empty hand being there.

The London magician · « **Reply #24 on:** July 23, 2015, 02:01:56 PM »

This is really interesting for me, I haven't seen a custom casino deck (apart from the cherry deck) before, but maybe I just haven't looked.

Maybe you could try finishing the borders with just the hexagon shape - making for a new kind of border.

Love it so far!

ecNate · « **Reply #25 on:** July 23, 2015, 02:42:12 PM »

Quote from: rjtomlinson1977 on July 18, 2015, 09:19:57 PM

I'm half tempted to make this set of courts available within the creative commons. I'm tired of seeing Frankenstein versions of courts being used by everyone and their brother. I personally wouldn't mind giving these to any who would find good use for them.

That would be really great if you would do that. Depending on your specific rights releases this may result in some really bad decks showing up on Kickstarter, but some good ones may come from it. More importantly, new designers would see how things are done and could study it and use as a starting point or just background template while working on radically different art in a new layer without any fear of violating some copyright.

Don Boyer · « **Reply #26 on:** July 24, 2015, 09:26:50 AM »

Quote from: Alex magician on July 23, 2015, 02:01:56 PM

This is really interesting for me, I haven't seen a custom casino deck (apart from the cherry deck) before, but maybe I just haven't looked.

Maybe you could try finishing the borders with just the hexagon shape - making for a new kind of border.

Love it so far!

Technically, all casino decks are custom - they only use name-branded decks in the first place. Some are more custom than others - many use "casino versions" of standard backs, but there's also a lot of decks out there that are completely custom, start to finish, in all details. And this isn't even a casino deck! It's an off-the-shelf deck for a Chinese company that was embarrassed about the fact that they were cloning the Bee Diamond Back for so long.

The idea of ending the border with a hex shape is interesting - it would make for some unique gaps and a variable-width border. But it's not the first time I've seen something like that before - I think the Japanese Friars' Club deck had a variable-width squared border, something with a bit of a Roman look to it.

Quote from: ecNate on July 23, 2015, 02:42:12 PM

Quote from: rjtomlinson1977 on July 18, 2015, 09:19:57 PM
I'm half tempted to make this set of courts available within the creative commons. I'm tired of seeing Frankenstein versions of courts being used by everyone and their brother. I personally wouldn't mind giving these to any who would find good use for them.

That would be really great if you would do that. Depending on your specific rights releases this may result in some really bad decks showing up on Kickstarter, but some good ones may come from it. More importantly, new designers would see how things are done and could study it and use as a starting point or just background template while working on radically different art in a new layer without any fear of violating some copyright.

Courts for an International Standard deck are not copyrightable, for the same reasons that the alphabet is not copyrightable. Too much prior art in existence. Spot cards aren't, either, except for the Ace of Spades, as nearly all decks have a unique Ace of Spades.

rjtomlinson1977 · « **Reply #27 on:** July 24, 2015, 08:11:19 PM »

3 out of 4 updated Jacks... keeping with standard look with some modifications. For example, I didn't think the Jack of Diamond needed a flower poking out of his chest for no apparent reason so I got rid of it.
With this project I'm not reinventing the wheel.. I'm just giving it a good cleaning and pumping it up with some fresh air.

Don Boyer · « **Reply #28 on:** July 24, 2015, 09:48:02 PM »

Quote from: rjtomlinson1977 on July 24, 2015, 08:11:19 PM

3 out of 4 updated Jacks... keeping with standard look with some modifications. For example, I didn't think the Jack of Diamond needed a flower poking out of his chest for no apparent reason so I got rid of it.
With this project I'm not reinventing the wheel.. I'm just giving it a good cleaning and pumping it up with some fresh air.

Don't go too far with those tweaks. Some poker players use them for identifying wild cards. "Man with the ax," "One-eyed jack," etc. Things like the flower Jack are part of what they look for.

It's fine to go totally new with a custom deck - but you're making a standard deck, not a custom one.

rjtomlinson1977 · « **Reply #29 on:** July 24, 2015, 11:06:58 PM »

So should I add the flower back?

Don Boyer · « **Reply #30 on:** July 24, 2015, 11:34:34 PM »

Quote from: rjtomlinson1977 on July 24, 2015, 11:06:58 PM

So should I add the flower back?

I would recommend it, yes. Standard decks have less flexibility for changes - remember, a lot of poker players will use this deck and expect all the same graphical features here that are in any pack of Bicycles, Bees, Hoyles, Waddington's, Copags, etc.

The following should remain unchanged:
- any facial hair on the men
- hair color
- items held
- direction facing
- whether seen in portrait (two eyes visible) or profile (one eye visible)

Crown styles in generally should be about the same.

Clothing you have some flexibility on - but there's an exception. The Queen of Spades appears to be holding something in her hand - it looks like a piece of her garment folded over, a section in white with a series of symbols on it. Some magicians use this as a reveal - the symbols look a little like spades, and some (cough, DAVIDBLAINE, cough) even alter the symbols to look more like spades and change the amount of the symbols on the "card" she's holding. Perish the thought that some dingbat playing poker with his buddies declared "queen holding a card" as wild...though I will grant that this queen is better known as either "Lady Death" (because of spades being associated with death) or "the Bedpost Queen" (her scepter in the other hand resembles a bedpost). It's more of a concession to magicians than to poker players.

In fact...if you were subtle about it...you could conceal a number of card reveals in the garments of the courts, making this a deck magicians might seek out, since it would be a bonus feature for performances.

Worst Bower · « **Reply #31 on:** July 25, 2015, 05:49:20 AM »

Agree with Don. This is a standard deck and it's the staple deck of a client, you can't mess with courts like a KS project. Card historians have noted the strong traditionalism people attach to their cards and how designs change very slowly through the centuries. It basically boils down to these two reasons:

1. Gamblers are notoriously superstitious (they have to be, just ask any mathematician). They will blame any loss on any changes to their cards. Some gamblers have favorite decks down to the brand, number, year of production, etc. Faro players, for example, still played with cards that had sharp edges, single faces, no corner indices, decades after everyone else moved on.

2. People play with cards that their family or friends play with or what they've seen on TV. They don't want to be the odd one out. They won't play bridge with grandma with an erotic deck of course. Kids of a certain age get precocious and want to play with cards that adults have, they've started to think their Disney or Marvel heroes deck are too childish. Then they grow up with the familiar courts and it becomes culturally ingrained.

When it comes to club decks or house decks, there's only so much you can do. Stick to Don's suggestions. People pay more attention to faces and items than clothing, since they're more abstract and it blurs in their memories. I can recall the suicide king's face but if you swap his belts or coat with another, I probably won't notice.

rjtomlinson1977 · « **Reply #32 on:** July 25, 2015, 06:51:04 PM »

Here's the updated Jack with his flower back. Also here's a work in progress view of the Jack of Clubs.

Rob Wright · « **Reply #33 on:** July 25, 2015, 11:33:16 PM »

Since the whole purpose of RT redesigning these cards is to get away from looking like Bee's, I would think he would not want to use the "fade-to-white" Stinger-style border?

Don Boyer · « **Reply #34 on:** July 26, 2015, 01:31:16 AM »

Quote from: rjtomlinson1977 on July 25, 2015, 06:51:04 PM

Here's the updated Jack with his flower back. Also here's a work in progress view of the Jack of Clubs.

Where is the flower? Are my glasses that bad? I hope not, I just got them...

Quote from: Rob Wright on July 25, 2015, 11:33:16 PM

Since the whole purpose of RT redesigning these cards is to get away from looking like Bee's, I would think he would not want to use the "fade-to-white" Stinger-style border?

Because that fade-to-white border is used exclusively by USPC in a) casino decks and b) Theory11's Stingers, a long sold-out design (although it's a little known fact that T11 has been reprinting them and others, if not their entire catalog, for wholesale to retailers). They don't allow other non-casino decks to have it, for whatever reason - either that or no one's asked to use it. Additionally, while you want the new design to be original and unique, you don't want to stray too far from the classic design. In China, the real deal, the counterfeits and the lookalikes are the market leaders for a reason: people buy them. So the new design should be made new enough to be unique but similar enough to not be entirely alien to the core customer base.

Zenneth Kok's first custom deck design was a pair of black-and-white reprints of the Bicycle New Fan Back, because it's a gorgeous deck. His second custom deck design was a variant of the Bee Diamond Backs because of the market familiarity - he performs predominantly in Asia and Pacifica. There's a really long story about why he never made another version or printing of that deck - suffice it to say that Mr. Kok no longer deals with USPC, to the best of my knowledge, and it's been a few years since he's released a USPC deck. USPC goes to great lengths to protect the Bee Diamond Back design in that market - unlike decks made for sale in the US, the Chinese market version has holograms etched into the cellophane as a mark of authenticity! It looks REALLY cool, and it's a shame they don't use such features on their domestic decks - they'd be a hit. But the point is, yes, be new and original, but don't be so new and original that people who love the classic design will reject the new one in favor of the classic one. The honeycomb concept is actually brilliant, as it continues the "bee" theme without being a "Bee" registered trademark or copyrighted design.

rjtomlinson1977 · « **Reply #35 on:** July 27, 2015, 06:46:32 PM »

Here's the Queen of Spades. As of right now, I'm thinking of modified hairdos for the Queens.... unless people object.

Don Boyer · « **Reply #36 on:** July 28, 2015, 01:26:50 AM »

Quote from: rjtomlinson1977 on July 27, 2015, 06:46:32 PM

Here's the Queen of Spades. As of right now, I'm thinking of modified hairdos for the Queens.... unless people object.

Modify the style - but not the color. In other words, keep the brunettes brown-haired, etc. But a different hairstyle would be refreshing.

NineLives · « **Reply #37 on:** July 29, 2015, 10:48:58 PM »

Quote from: rjtomlinson1977 on July 27, 2015, 06:46:32 PM

Here's the Queen of Spades. As of right now, I'm thinking of modified hairdos for the Queens.... unless people object.

I really like how your design is allowing elements in the courts' clothing (patterns) to stand out more and 'shine'

I'm absolutely no expert on what is acceptable in terms of 'modifying' the original, though if you have freedom with things like hairstyles, maybe you could give the Queen of Spades a more feminine jawline (i.e. slightly pointed chin)? ... Her eyes are looking good and I think your use of the curling wand has done wonders for her hair

cheers

rjtomlinson1977 · « **Reply #38 on:** July 30, 2015, 07:47:35 PM »

Here's a preview link for the project. It's not all the way done... but I wanted to get some feedback.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2060803491/1845598135?token=1de02fa0

Mark · « **Reply #39 on:** July 30, 2015, 10:44:16 PM »

Cleaning up the mascara from the originals looks really good. Reasonable shipping costs are going to be critical at this price point. A tier with 6 decks might be useful. What quality stock are you looking to use from this printer?

rjtomlinson1977 · « **Reply #40 on:** July 31, 2015, 12:46:06 AM »

Yeah... I'll probably add a few more tiers before launching. They use 310gsm German black core paper. The finish is something we've been working on. With my Gettysburg deck, the handling was good but it could've been better. With my Bradford county deck they made a few adjustments and got the finish perfect. They fan and shuffle really good. USPCC and EPCC still is slightly better but in my opinion USPCC can be too slippery.

rjtomlinson1977 · « **Reply #41 on:** July 31, 2015, 02:37:05 AM »

Please feel free to leave comments and/or suggestions on the KS project page. WJ Printing is looking for feedback

The London magician · « **Reply #42 on:** July 31, 2015, 04:29:54 AM »

For me, at least, I am much more likely to back a project with a video. Maybe do some magic or cardistry or set up a kind of casino scene just to showcase the cards. Also, make sure the video (if you chose to make one) is good quality; there is nothing more annoying than watching a bad video with 'crackly' sound. You could also get a video of the factory, but probably not the one from their website.

Good luck!

rjtomlinson1977 · « **Reply #43 on:** July 31, 2015, 10:04:19 AM »

I wish I knew someone that could handle cards and make a video. But I did get some video clips form the factory... so I'll get those posted this morning on the page.

Don Boyer · « **Reply #44 on:** August 01, 2015, 02:55:52 AM »

Quote from: rjtomlinson1977 on July 30, 2015, 07:47:35 PM

Here's a preview link for the project. It's not all the way done... but I wanted to get some feedback.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2060803491/1845598135?token=1de02fa0

I looked it over and it looks great. I would, however, make the fade-to-white border just a little deeper. The card's edge should be 100% white and remain white for a short distance into the center before the fade. With yours, the pattern is still visible at the die line, so it's more of a "fade to about 25% opaque"...

Lighten the blue card back's shade a little - it looks nearly black. You could consider offering black as a stretch goal.

The pricing is phenomenally good - I hope the quality isn't significantly lower. Have they sent you stock samples?

rjtomlinson1977 · « **Reply #45 on:** August 01, 2015, 06:33:12 AM »

Yes, I'll update the fade effect and lower the darkness of the blue. I think that will help too. Yes, I've gotten samples from them and also had a few decks printed in the last couple months. The first deck I printed with them was Gettysburg. The finish and handling were okay but not as good as I wanted. The cellophane was also loose. So, I gave them the feedback from my backers and with the next deck they did for me they made adjustments.The next deck, which was a deck of history cards based on my local community of Bradford County, turned out amazing. The cellophane was nice and tight. It was identical to what USPCC looks like. The finish and handling was nearly perfect. The only negative feedback I heard was they were slightly stiff. They're slippery but not as much as USPCC (which for me is a good thing because I think USPCC is a little too sliippery).

Don Boyer · « **Reply #46 on:** August 01, 2015, 11:27:50 PM »

Quote from: rjtomlinson1977 on August 01, 2015, 06:33:12 AM

Yes, I'll update the fade effect and lower the darkness of the blue. I think that will help too. Yes, I've gotten samples from them and also had a few decks printed in the last couple months. The first deck I printed with them was Gettysburg. The finish and handling were okay but not as good as I wanted. The cellophane was also loose. So, I gave them the feedback from my backers and with the next deck they did for me they made adjustments.The next deck, which was a deck of history cards based on my local community of Bradford County, turned out amazing. The cellophane was nice and tight. It was identical to what USPCC looks like. The finish and handling was nearly perfect. The only negative feedback I heard was they were slightly stiff. They're slippery but not as much as USPCC (which for me is a good thing because I think USPCC is a little too sliippery).

Stiff is not necessarily bad - casino-grade cards are rather stiff. It just takes some breaking in and some getting used to, and not everyone has the time or the preference.

USPC's decks are as slick as they are because all their custom work has "Magic Finish" on it - an extra-slick coating. It's the default coating for custom decks.

I may want to contact you soon about an article for CARD CULTURE Magazine about your experience with creating this project. It's rather unique how this whole thing developed.

rjtomlinson1977 · « **Reply #47 on:** August 03, 2015, 08:27:57 AM »

Feel free to contact me anytime. If you want you can e-mail me at rjtomlinson@tomlinsoncards.com

NineLives · « **Reply #48 on:** August 04, 2015, 11:36:07 AM »

Congratulations on going live

I haven't been here that long, so yours is one of the first decks I've followed from the design stage to live on KS - looking good!

cheers

Don Boyer · « **Reply #49 on:** August 05, 2015, 01:00:47 AM »

RJ, when you go live, it's customary - not to mention good sales practice - to post your link!

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2060803491/swarm-playing-cards

Paul Ruccio · « **Reply #50 on:** August 20, 2015, 12:17:57 AM »

Project was cancelled with all the content wiped from the Kickstarter campaign. What happened?

Sburk49 · « **Reply #51 on:** August 20, 2015, 10:51:55 PM »

Quote from: Paul Ruccio on August 20, 2015, 12:17:57 AM

Project was cancelled with all the content wiped from the Kickstarter campaign. What happened?

On the UC forum he mentioned something along the lines of USPCC contacting the project and wanting to shut it down. I dont know the details but it would explain why it got removed.

The London magician · « **Reply #52 on:** August 21, 2015, 03:28:54 AM »

Why? Does anyone know what was wrong with it?

Don Boyer · « **Reply #53 on:** August 21, 2015, 06:36:57 PM »

It's in all likelihood an intellectual property issue. Remember, the deck's design was originally a Bee Diamond Back knock-off and the company the designer was working with was located in China, completely sheltered from US law. It's not impossible that the redesign is another piece of USPC IP in some manner, or that they just used the fact that they were working with a US company on the redesign as an excuse to pursue them legally somehow. Tomlinson probably had to dissolve all links with the Chinese company to shield himself from any liability - and is probably legally bound not to discuss the issue, either.

At least, that's my best guess.