Borderless Cards - Not all bad?

[AceGambit]

Everyone seems to harp on borderless cards.  The Artifice V1s come to mind first, but in general I've heard it.  I'd like to pose the approach that borderless cards are not a terrible idea, and the best of both worlds can be acquired if the edges of your card share design on the front and back.


Thoughts anyone?

[austin]

Borders and no borders, they both have there ups and downs. I like both, but I would prefer a border. The border on the Artifice deck makes it pop out more in my opinion, and it seems to give it a brighter, and cleaner color to it.

[Evan]

I definitely prefer the border. Which is why I hate most Bee decks

[xela]

The Artifice v1 actually had borders, they were just black. I've been trying to come up with a way to get rid of the reversals issue with a deck, and my solution so far is incompatible with USPCC printing. They require either thick borders or no borders. With the Vortex the compromise I made was about halfway, but still not as thing as I had wanted.

[Evan]

The Artifice v1 actually had borders, they were just black. I've been trying to come up with a way to get rid of the reversals issue with a deck, and my solution so far is incompatible with USPCC printing. They require either thick borders or no borders. With the Vortex the compromise I made was about halfway, but still not as thing as I had wanted.

What about the faded border like stingers?

[Paul Carpenter]

I've got an approach that I'm going to try with my Tendril deck. Basically involvs purposefully shading into the bleed area so that you get a consistent, non-chippable edge that reverses, but also preserves the dark back and face. Hopefully USPCC won't freak when they see it.

[Kanped]

I love borderless decks.  There's no other way to do convincing second, bottom or centre deals and I think it's a real shame that there's so little choice for borderless decks out there.  I mean, D&D have their own card company and a wealth of playing cards to choose from and any time I've seen them do card cheat routines, it's standard Bees and they don't look good and don't last.

I mean, how many decks do you have?  How many of them have borders? Couldn't you just use one of those decks rather than dismissing off hand any borderless deck?  It means those of us who like them are stuck using standard Bees because the preception is that the market isn't there for them.  One thing I'd like to know; if the design of the card worked really well, looked great, handled great but had no borders would that stop you from buying the deck?

The reason I ask is simply that most, if not all, borderless designs I've seen kinda suck and I wonder if you guys think it's really an issue of the border or if it's a more general design issue?  BTW, feeling on the Artifice V1 vs V2 doesn't count because, as Alex said, the V1s did have borders; they don't work well for the cheat stuff either.

[PoundFFFFFF]

There's nothing wrong with designing a borderless back - in many ways it adds to the aesthetics - but the only problems are practicality. Sure, you can hide a double or a false deal, but you can with a bordered deck as well. But there is no way ever one can do triumph or any reversed card routine with a borderless.

[austin]

I definitely prefer the border. Which is why I hate most Bee decks

The only Bee deck that I like because of this reason are the Stingers.

[Don Boyer]

There's good reasons for having both styles around.  A black-bordered deck is essentially a borderless deck, because it's colored into the bleed area.  The tricks people talk about with flipped cards are perfectly fine with any black deck, or any colored deck of any kind - IF the color of the front of the card MATCHES the color on the back that's in the border area.  Otherwise that flipped card stands out like a sore thumb - I've had some spectators spot that on me during tricks.  The only borderless decks with a mismatched face color I even consider such tricks with are decks with bleed-edge patterns like Bees or my casino Gemacos - and even then I'm still sometimes spotted.  The pattern helps because it's practically an optical illusion with certain deck designs, such as the Bee Diamond Back.  I spread out some Bees, I can hardly tell where one card ends and the next one starts.  (A creative cardist could probably make some cool-looking "card rivers" with that pattern!)

Borderless designs, however, are a card cheat's best friend.  There are ways of marking the deck edges that are practically invisible under casual scrutiny.  It's why very few casinos still use Bees in the Diamond Back pattern if the cards are going to be handled by the customers.  The Stinger design was made specifically to counter this effect.  I'd imagine that same thing holds true for a black or other-colored deck as well.  Imagine if you will that the edge chips people are always complaining about are intentionally created on the side edge in a way that looks like a random pattern but is instead a marking system...  Even the v1 Artifice deck could be used in this manner.  Nicks in the finish of a white-bordered deck are a lot harder to spot.

[AceGambit]

Take the White Arcane deck for a moment.  It's a white deck, the back design is almost borderless, and inversion is barely noticeable.  This is simply because the 'off whitish gray' color of the cards is the same on both sides.


Imagine if the Bee playing cards looked something like this:

[Kanped]

I think a design like that makes any reversal trick obvious.  Anyone looking t that immediately thinks 'the back is on the front'.

[MrLukeCarroll]

Ultimately if Borderless designs make your Gambling Skill Demo or anything else your doing more convinving then you should deffinetly use them. Though I do agree that there needs to be more variety available in borderless cards

[Don Boyer]

@AceGambit - that would actually be a weird but cool variant of Bees!  Color face cards would look like crap, unless you left anything in the face card's frame the original colors.


@MrLuke - There's enough borderless decks on the market if you look around.  Any all-black deck is truly a borderless deck; it's been printed into the bleed area.  There's enough of those around that you can't swing a dead cat around without hittin' one!  But I strongly suspect that any gambling demo using borderless decks could also be performed with a bordered deck with the right application of skill.  Are there any specific cases you can think of where this wouldn't be true?

[Kanped]

Second dealing where the spectator (victim?) is above the level of the cards and close; if there's a border you can see it staying in place on top while you move the second card.

[Don Boyer]

But how often does that occur, especially in a gambling demo - or a real gambling situation?  Often you're seated at a table with some amount of separation, right?

[Kanped]

It's usually 10 keen eyed people around a 5 foot table.  Not a lot of room for error.  Personally, I think a) Gambling moves should be totally invisible, even to trained eyes and b) without a borderless deck, they're pretty obvious even with trained hands.

[Don Boyer]

Well, then, I guess there's a place for borderless cards.  The thing is, though, if you're talking about a real-life gambling situation other than a neighborhood poker game, gamblers tend to stick hard to the tried-and-true designs, which are generally simple - for example, the Bee Diamond Back and its many knockoffs.  You show up at a table with a fancy design like Artifice V1, I don't know how well they'd cotton to it, particularly with the non-standard typefaces and designs.  Players are creatures of habit - remember all the fuss at the 2007 WSOP Championship with the introduction of the Bicycle "PokerPeek" design on bridge-sized Kem decks?  They were as popular as a baboon at prom night.  It was too radical of a change to be "absorbed" so quickly.

[Lushbob]

In general, I'd say I prefer cards with borders. It gives them a neat, 'finished' look in my opinion. Sort of like a picture that's been framed, if you want to think of it that way. But I think there's a definite exception when it comes to most Bee decks. I love the bordless diamond back just because it looks so nice when you fan with it. And I don't usually perform tricks that involve upside down cards, so borderless cards aren't a drawback in that area for me.

[dmbaggs]

In general, I'd say I prefer cards with borders. It gives them a neat, 'finished' look in my opinion. Sort of like a picture that's been framed, if you want to think of it that way. But I think there's a definite exception when it comes to most Bee decks. I love the bordless diamond back just because it looks so nice when you fan with it. And I don't usually perform tricks that involve upside down cards, so borderless cards aren't a drawback in that area for me.

Yeah I'd have to agree with Lushbob. The border is nice and it keeps the deck looking neat and clean. There are a few decks that look nice without borders (titanium bees), but for the most part I'm not a big fan of borderless cards.


One big exception for me is the Artifice decks. I think the first version without borders looks ten times better than the new v2 decks. The border has a such a harsh contrast with the rest of the back. Also I think the Monarchs would have looked much better borderless.


So I guess it does depend on the deck, but for the most part I like borders 

[Don Boyer]

Yeah I'd have to agree with Lushbob. The border is nice and it keeps the deck looking neat and clean. There are a few decks that look nice without borders (titanium bees), but for the most part I'm not a big fan of borderless cards.


One big exception for me is the Artifice decks. I think the first version without borders looks ten times better than the new v2 decks. The border has a such a harsh contrast with the rest of the back. Also I think the Monarchs would have looked much better borderless.


So I guess it does depend on the deck, but for the most part I like borders 

I thought the bordered V2 Artifice and Monarch decks were really nice, once I saw them.  It is very much like a frame around a piece of artwork, because it also serves the function of protecting the edge of the art from getting battered and chipped with repeated handling.  Full bleed cards show edge damage like those fancy blacklights on "CSI" and similar programs show bodily fluids...

I saw a hilarious clip from a British comedy skit show showing such a scene.  As I recall, a female detective shows up as the crime scene unit is getting ready to turn on a black floodlight to illuminate an entire bedroom.  She was apparently "out for dinner" or something with her boyfriend.  When the light comes on, nearly half of her body starts to glow with stains, including a big handprint on the side of her face!

[AceGambit]

I thought the bordered V2 Artifice and Monarch decks were really nice, once I saw them.

I actually did not like the Monarchs at all.  I was very disappointed in them, however, the borders on the V2's make them worth my time to actually use.  Before they had borders, I owned the V1s because they looked awesome, but I couldn't take them out and use them.  I perform in bars, where bright lights are very scarce.  The borderless cards are hard enough to differentiate as it is, black borderless?  Forget it, do fan the cards and say "take one", they look at you confused "take one what?"


The white borders for me served more utility than just for inverted tricks, they made the cards a viable option for performance.

[Don Boyer]

I actually did not like the Monarchs at all.  I was very disappointed in them, however, the borders on the V2's make them worth my time to actually use.  Before they had borders, I owned the V1s because they looked awesome, but I couldn't take them out and use them.  I perform in bars, where bright lights are very scarce.  The borderless cards are hard enough to differentiate as it is, black borderless?  Forget it, do fan the cards and say "take one", they look at you confused "take one what?"


The white borders for me served more utility than just for inverted tricks, they made the cards a viable option for performance.

...and if you can't perform with a deck, it's not much use to a magician.  Collectors seem to love the borderless designs more than players and magicians.  I don't know which side of the fence the cardists lean toward.  Borderless does look attractive in many cases, no doubt, but I'm a performer first and a collector second.  It's only for certain tricks that I'd ever take out an Artifice V1 or something similar.  And this doesn't even factor in the edge nicks that are the bane of any borderless designs, black cards in particular.  Hard to do a classy trick with cards that looked like they survived a battlezone only by the skin of their finish.

[Lushbob]

...and if you can't perform with a deck, it's not much use to a magician.  Collectors seem to love the borderless designs more than players and magicians.  I don't know which side of the fence the cardists lean toward.  Borderless does look attractive in many cases, no doubt, but I'm a performer first and a collector second.  It's only for certain tricks that I'd ever take out an Artifice V1 or something similar.  And this doesn't even factor in the edge nicks that are the bane of any borderless designs, black cards in particular.  Hard to do a classy trick with cards that looked like they survived a battlezone only by the skin of their finish.

"By the skin of their finish" - Priceless! But in all seriousness, I agree. Bordered designs are definitely more popular when it comes to magicians, but collectors don't seem to mind.