Why did you think they be white and gold instead of black and gold? Just because of the White Monarchs? A deck sold by an entirely different entity? That doesn't make a lot of sense, to me.
As far as appearance, my photos (or any photo I could take) doesn't really do this deck justice. The metallic gold ink really pops on that card back. Few photographers seem to be able to capture that metallic shine with their cameras; it certainly requires something way more sophisticated than what I have in my smartphone. They look better to me than the Gold Monarchs, because there was enough large spaces in the deck's design to really allow the gold to show.
Anyone getting the London 2012 deck has a shot at getting an autographed Gold Crown deck...
I didnt expect them to be like the gold monarchs I expected what is black on these to be gold and what is gold on these to be white or black. So it would be more of a solid color gold. The box even suggests that.
I also disagree with the point about them being nicer theat Gold Arcanes, The gold Arcanes are IMO nicer because the faces are also black and have the metalic in them. With these it is just arrco faces that I personally am not very fond of. But really to each his own.
First, an amendment - that contest for the Gold Crown is only for orders placed in the first 48 hours of the sale. So you have until Sunday evening.
As far as expecting something from the box and getting something different - don't judge a book by its cover, don't judge a deck by its box.
As far as Gold Arcanes, my opened pack is really chipped from only a little shuffling. Also, the fact that ALL of the courts have gold pips rather than just the traditionally black pips makes certain aspects of gameplay a little more difficult.
Why did you think they be white and gold instead of black and gold? Just because of the White Monarchs? A deck sold by an entirely different entity? That doesn't make a lot of sense, to me.
I figured TBC would make these decks with a white back because white and gold merely looks cleaner and, overall, better. IMO
So if I thought that chartreuse and lime looked cleaner and better, am I supposed to be disappointed with every deck that doesn't have that color scheme? There are a plethora of color schemes that would look clean and good on the backs of a pack of cards. But I don't get disappointed just because only a few don't come in the color schemes that I like most. Each is an individual work of art, and I judge them on their merits, not what my expectations were, especially since you haven't seen any promo photos showing anything about the deck until I posted mine (which technically aren't even promos).
The one thing that helped make the White Monarchs look so clean and elegant wasn't just the gold-on-white color scheme. It was also the fact that the art was all very fine lines, done in little dashes. If you took the Gold Crowns and swapped in white to replace gold and gold to replace black, you'd be looking at an awful lot of gold, enough to probably consider it gaudy. If you simply swapped in white to replace black, that also might be a bit bright. The black helps to offset the gold and it does create and elegant and classic look.
How many times have you watched movies set in the American Reconstruction/British Victorian era or the early 20th century that had signage that made excellent use of gold on black? I still see trucks for one deli meats company in New York that are painted predominantly black with gold lettering - it reminds me of those eras. If it wasn't for the fact that metallic inks weren't in common use (or possibly hadn't even been discovered yet), I'd say this deck would look at home in the drawing room of a turn-of-the-century gentleman in London or a well-to-do businessman in New York or Boston, enjoying a post-dinner cigar with a few guests, possibly playing cards together.
But in the end, everyone's entitled to their own opinions. You've said yours, I've said mine.
