PlayingCardForum.com - A Discourse For Playing Cards
Playing Card Chat ♠ ♥ ♣ ♦ => Playing Card Plethora => Topic started by: xela on August 06, 2012, 08:17:12 PM
-
I always face palm when I hear someone talking about this imaginary thing as if it is something that matters.
As of today, there is no proof of any kind that heavy ink saturation affects handling, durability, softness or performance.
The ink that is put on a deck is microscopic. I've heard people say that heavy ink saturation increases deck thickness, which is insane, because ink doesn't sit on top of the stock. It bleeds into the paper, which is why it doesn't rub off. Does it bleed all the way through, modifying the actual stock of the cards? No!
Now the fact is, if you drench a piece of printer paper in black ink, that paper will feel completely different than an unsaturated one. The difference is almost negligible, but it's there. However, paper is significantly less thick than playing card paste board.
So when someone tells you that the Tendril handles worse because of all the black ink, please, tell that person they have no idea what they are talking about.
What you should take away from this: Ink saturation has never been proven, it has never been a fact, it has never been tested in any capacity other than random observational anecdotes. Can ink saturation affect handling? Certainly, there is a possibility that it can, as with any unproven hypothesis. However, in the worst case scenario, the effect that it has is entirely negligible for anyone performing with the cards. There is also zero correlation between ink and durability. Durability has entirely to do with how you handle the deck, your hands, storage, humidity, card stock, coating, dimpling; ink is insignificant, especially since it is put on the cards before the coating is. Heavy saturation of a deck can affect deck weight by a fraction of an amount, but this has still never been tested, because no one has printed two decks where one is covered in only black ink and the other containing no ink at all. Heavy ink to stock ratio can make a deck feel slightly differently, but again it's not a better or worse sort of thing, it's just slightly different. We're talking a barely noticeable difference that is entirely nonexistent when it comes to performance.
If you still want to believe ink saturation has an affect on handling, know that you are basing your thoughts 100% on anecdotal evidence that did not undergo any type of legitimate testing.
And if it's anecdotal evidence you want, then listen to me, I own hundreds of decks. I use and abuse a lot of them. The fully saturated black decks don't start clumping any faster than the white ones.
My theory is innocent until proven guilty. In this case, judging a deck based on ink saturation is just nonsensical. This is coming from a guy who produced a deck that was lauded for its low saturation. I tossed one of my Tendril decks into the trash after I used it to the point of no return. It took me about two weeks. I toss a Vortex deck into the trash every two weeks as well, after it's used beyond acceptability.
That is all. :)
-
Bravo Alex!
With the ORNATES I'm starting to get a lot of comments like "that much ink on Aristocrat Stock.......??!!!!". After years of dealing with all types of printed materials I have never seen ink saturation affect a thick stock, and that's even without the black glue stuff that USPCC adds to the middle of the 2 paper stocks. I'm not an experienced flourisher so I haven't had the confidence to debate with someone who is a flourisher and questions the ink to stock ratio. I really don't see how ink density could change much at all, and I'm glad to see that someone with so much experience have a similar theory.
thanks, Randy
-
Bravo Alex!
With the ORNATES I'm starting to get a lot of comments like "that much ink on Aristocrat Stock.......??!!!!". After years of dealing with all types of printed materials I have never seen ink saturation affect a thick stock, and that's even without the black glue stuff that USPCC adds to the middle of the 2 paper stocks. I'm not an experienced flourisher so I haven't had the confidence to debate with someone who is a flourisher and questions the ink to stock ratio. I really don't see how ink density could change much at all, and I'm glad to see that someone with so much experience have a similar theory.
thanks, Randy
Experienced flourishers laugh at us folks who complain about super-tiny, insignificant, handling variations. When you are good, you are good with pretty much anything. I do recall people moaning about ratios with your deck too, but trust me your deck will handle just as well as any other one, and this imaginary attribute needs to leave the arena because it's nonexistant.
Let's put it this way.
"I can do a sybil with this white deck, but I cannot do it with this black one!" said nobody, ever.
-
Hey Alex, thanks for this interesting read! I was wondering if you could add it to the Facts or Fiction thread and update it as well? I find it extremely interesting as well, yet it hasn't been updated in a while. In case you're wondering what I'm talking about, here it is:
http://aethercards.com/discourse/playing-card-plethora/playing-cards-fact-or-fiction-myths-debunked-here/60/
-
I completely disagree with you, Alex.
-
I completely disagree with you, Alex.
Could you please give reasoning supporting why you say that? Saying that you disagree with him seems pointless unless you give examples of decks that prove your stance. Tell how decks on what stocks you've handled, and how much inks they have, and how that affects the handling compared to one with more/ less ink.
-
A card that is all black has exactly the same amount of ink as a card that is all yellow.
This conversation is over.
-
I completely disagree with you, Alex.
That's your choice, but you are completely wrong. ;)
-
I completely disagree with you, Alex.
That's your choice, but you are completely wrong. ;)
You say it hasn't been proven that it exists but it also hasn't been proven that it doesn't exist, so how do you know if I'm wrong?
-
Pip Squeek is working with USPCC to confirm the truth soon.
-
I completely disagree with you, Alex.
That's your choice, but you are completely wrong. ;)
You say it hasn't been proven that it exists but it also hasn't been proven that it doesn't exist, so how do you know if I'm wrong?
All evidence points to it not existing, it's just something someone made up for funzies. I have yet to see anyone in the printing industry, ever, talk about ink saturation affecting the paper.
It's as stupid as going to a car dealership and claiming the paint they used affects the aerodynamics.
-
I've noticed this topic is now making its way to Facebook. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves with this topic. Pip Squeek is working with the USPCC Press Department to verify this theory’s truth. With all due respect no one is in a position to say for certain if the ink creates physical changes to a cards stock. I will update everyone as soon as I hear the results of the investigation.
Thanks
-
I've noticed this topic is now making its way to Facebook. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves with this topic. Pip Squeek is working with the USPCC Press Department to verify this theory’s truth. With all due respect no one is in a position to say for certain if the ink creates physical changes to a cards stock. I will update everyone as soon as I hear the results of the investigation.
Thanks
USPCC is not launching an investigation for you. Odds are you'l get an inconclusive answer from some guy in the department who doesn't want to be fired for saying the wrong thing.
No one is getting ahead of themselves. Russell is completely right in stating that color of ink has nothing to do with amount of ink.
Folks, cards have existed for hundreds of years, and this whole ratio think didn't start until what, a year ago? Stop spreading misinformation, and telling people that quality products are worse than they are because of things like this.
-
Do you have this inability of being wrong or do you just have issues with your ego? I'll post Bill's reply for the people to see for themselves and let them make up their own minds. Get a grip man but don’t feed people your beliefs and expect it to be the truth without any research or proof. I will keep in touch with the USPCC because I want to be sure the truth is found. If I'm wrong then I'll openly admit it and remove it from our archives.
Here is some food for thought though. How is it that stocks can be effected by sitting in the ware houses by humidity (indirect moisture), but directly applied ink cannot? I don’t really want to get into an argument here but I want a chance to get some info from a reliable source rather than squabbling back and forth based solely on opinions. I don't think it’s wrong to voice your opinion but I think it’s clear that your trying to apply it as the actual truth.
Thanks
-
I don't think it’s wrong to voice your opinion but I think it’s clear that your trying to apply it as the actual truth.
Thanks
I'm not the one who has a playing card archive that rates decks based on this imaginary trait. I am also not the one who has reviewers review decks based on this.
You crapped all over one of the best deck reviewers on YouTube and linked to another reviewer, claiming they are the epitome of good information, only because you feed them that information. That information is completely wrong half the time. Here are some things that are huge mistakes:
- This reviewer stated that the Brimstones handle badly because of the saturation of ink, but in a different review lauded the Revision 1 decks for handling well, which is baffling because they have an identical amount of ink on them.
- This reviewer claims that the made up finishes companies make are a real thing, even when the company itself denies it.
- This reviewer never fact checks anything despite having direct access to things.
The point here isn't that you have a hypothesis, if that's all that was, that's a healthy thing to have. It pushes boundaries, it forces people to think about things they wouldn't have otherwise.
The problem is that you are spreading complete misinformation as fact, and then on top of that you are lambasting people who you think are inaccurate.
On the PipSqueek blog, you guys claim Linoid is out of retirement. Since when? Why isn't this bigger news? Is it because no one else cares? I doubt it. Is it because USPCC reinvented an entire finish that only a foreign company can use? Doubt it. Is it because Linoid is still not a real thing, and the USPCC allows you to put the name of any finish you want on any deck now? My bet is that.
I'm glad you are contacting USPCC for their input. However, this is after you spent an entire year telling people that ink-to-stock ratio is fact, rather than a hypothesis or fiction.
The first deck I ever owned, which has its edges torn, it has some crimps and bends, and is covered in hand-dirt after three years of usage, still fans perfectly. It's a Shadow Masters deck, about as saturated as they get.
If your fans are suffering, I can offer you a number of reasons as to why, none of those reasons are because of the ink. Most of the time it's because you don't know how to fan.
Also, humidity affects cards because constant wetness warps card stock. Ink is not wetness. If you were able to remove the coating on top of a card, the ink wouldn't drip off.
-
Does anyone know if the inks used to print playing cards by USPCC are aqueous solutions (water-based) or solvent soluttions (organic materials)?
-
Does anyone know if the inks used to print playing cards by USPCC are aqueous solutions (water-based) or solvent soluttions (organic materials)?
I'm not sure Dell but you can email the USPCC and ask them. They should tell you with no problems.
I don't think it’s wrong to voice your opinion but I think it’s clear that your trying to apply it as the actual truth.
Thanks
I'm not the one who has a playing card archive that rates decks based on this imaginary trait. I am also not the one who has reviewers review decks based on this.
You crapped all over one of the best deck reviewers on YouTube and linked to another reviewer, claiming they are the epitome of good information, only because you feed them that information. That information is completely wrong half the time. Here are some things that are huge mistakes:
- This reviewer stated that the Brimstones handle badly because of the saturation of ink, but in a different review lauded the Revision 1 decks for handling well, which is baffling because they have an identical amount of ink on them.
- This reviewer claims that the made up finishes companies make are a real thing, even when the company itself denies it.
- This reviewer never fact checks anything despite having direct access to things.
The point here isn't that you have a hypothesis, if that's all that was, that's a healthy thing to have. It pushes boundaries, it forces people to think about things they wouldn't have otherwise.
The problem is that you are spreading complete misinformation as fact, and then on top of that you are lambasting people who you think are inaccurate.
On the PipSqueek blog, you guys claim Linoid is out of retirement. Since when? Why isn't this bigger news? Is it because no one else cares? I doubt it. Is it because USPCC reinvented an entire finish that only a foreign company can use? Doubt it. Is it because Linoid is still not a real thing, and the USPCC allows you to put the name of any finish you want on any deck now? My bet is that.
I'm glad you are contacting USPCC for their input. However, this is after you spent an entire year telling people that ink-to-stock ratio is fact, rather than a hypothesis or fiction.
The first deck I ever owned, which has its edges torn, it has some crimps and bends, and is covered in hand-dirt after three years of usage, still fans perfectly. It's a Shadow Masters deck, about as saturated as they get.
If your fans are suffering, I can offer you a number of reasons as to why, none of those reasons are because of the ink. Most of the time it's because you don't know how to fan.
Also, humidity affects cards because constant wetness warps card stock. Ink is not wetness. If you were able to remove the coating on top of a card, the ink wouldn't drip off.
I’m starting to think your rant is more about you not liking Pip Squeek than this ink to stock ratio. I didn’t come here to kick dirt in your face so I’m not sure why you’re doing it to me when all I’m trying to do is clarify something before you try to write it in stone. I think we all need to be objective at times and in a healthy way. This angry method of yours where you attack someone is just silly. Your community is too good for this kind of nonsense that you’re considering quality conversation on the playing card Plethora. I won’t be a part of it any longer; I’m leaving Aether for good. At least UC is objective and we can all trade ideas without dragging someone through the mud. I created the Ink to stock ratio to better understand how playing cards work and I will continue to try to expand on the understanding of playing cards. It’s my passion and a life style that I live and share with many others.
Pip Squeek has no intentions of falsifying any information on our site and if proven false, I will correct the misinformation. Thanks for the time to explain and I hope to catch all you other Aether members on Facebook sometime in the futures so we can all continue sharing this wonderful culture together!
Peace
-
I’m starting to think your rant is more about you not liking Pip Squeek than this ink to stock ratio. I didn’t come here to kick dirt in your face so I’m not sure why you’re doing it to me when all I’m trying to do is clarify something before you try to write it in stone. I think we all need to be objective at times and in a healthy way. This angry method of yours where you attack someone is just silly. Your community is too good for this kind of nonsense that you’re considering quality conversation on the playing card Plethora. I won’t be a part of it any longer; I’m leaving Aether for good.
Nothing to do with Pip Squeek, in fact ink:stock ratio has nothing to do with that site, it's your invention, and you made it up on a whim. This has everything to do with people that review decks, though, as well as the fact that this false trait can hurt sales for decks.
Also, no one attacked you or kicked dirt in your face. You and your site were not mentioned by name, and it was not even implied that you guys are the primary source of this invention. I'm not sure why you found it necessary to make it about you. You started this rumor a year ago, and it has now spread to many facets of the community, and that's not a good thing.
At least UC is objective and we can all trade ideas without dragging someone through the mud. I created the Ink to stock ratio to better understand how playing cards work and I will continue to try to expand on the understanding of playing cards. It’s my passion and a life style that I live and share with many others.
Peace
Oh please, don't put UC up on a pedestal. I think it's pretty well known that you think very lowly of the people there as well as the site. I have so many quotes from your PMs to me where you just trash people on that site. There are even posts on UC of you trashing them publicly (you can delete them if you like, but everyone there has seen them already). I think it's pretty obvious that you can't go around spitting in someone's face for a year and then act all cuddly with them when you need them to give you traffic. At least I don't go on there begging them for support after I have publicly trashed the site in the past (before CBJ made everything spiffy again). How low do you go?
As for you leaving the forums, going through your posts immediately indicates that you have contributed nothing to the community aside from incessant self-promotion.
You didn't even post here for ages until you decided this thread, which is about a false rumor, was actually about you.
Also, stop being so awkwardly paranoid. I often post threads from the forums to Facebook, no need to send your goons to cry about being attacked in response. I don't think anyone initially reading this post thought of you or your site until you brought it up.
-
Does anyone know if the inks used to print playing cards by USPCC are aqueous solutions (water-based) or solvent soluttions (organic materials)?
They used organic inks made from vegetables for the Bicycle Eco Edition deck. For the remainder of their decks, I'd think they're either water-based or petroleum-based. I'm inclined to say petroleum, because the inks I've seen used on printing presses tend to be thick and gooey, and not terribly aqueous in appearance; it more closely resembles oil paint from a tube or motor grease from a can. Press inks are applied to the plate with big metal rollers and pressure, rather than being squirted on the page like your inkjet printer; they need to stick to the plate in the crevices in order to make an ink transfer onto paper in just the right places.
But that's just a hypothesis, so don't take my word for it - for all I know, their ink is made of pixie wings, angel hair, orc nail clippings and unicorn juice. If you see any bald angels or freshly-manicured orcs, let me know! :)) (If you find freshly-squeezed unicorns, I'd prefer to NOT know, thanks...)
Either way, I don't believe they're using organic inks for all of their decks. The odd special project, perhaps, but not in general. Water inks, while possible, are unlikely.
Robert: hey, bro, you need to lighten up a bit. Try some decaf, breathe, take a yoga class, something...
You believe ink-to-stock ratio is "not disproven", but you haven't exactly proved it, either. You're talking to USPC about what the story is. Guess what? Even if they know, they may not be inclined to tell you, because they try to protect their trade secrets at least a little bit.
I've seen totally black decks that performed excellently, and I've seen predominantly white decks that were total crap - that alone might punch some holes into your hypothesis. I'm sure we've all (or most of us have) seen both conditions I just described in some of the decks in their collections.
If it's true, great; if it's not true, equally as great.
But until the time comes that it's proven one way or another in a systematic way using scientific method and proper testing procedures, DO NOT PUSH THE IDEA OF INK-TO-STOCK RATIO AS A FACT. If it hasn't been proven, it's not yet in the realm of "fact" but remains a hypothesis.
And it's completely true that USPC currently offers only two finishes - "standard" and Magic Finish. At one time in history there may have been unique formulas to the deck finishes, but these days the names are just marketing tools. I've seen the price sheets for deck orders. There is no mention of Air Cushion, Ivory, Cambric, Linoid, Smooth, Linen, High, or any other name besides Magic Finish.
And Air Cushion versus Smooth? The difference isn't the actual laminate placed on top of the ink and paper - it's whether or not the paper itself is smooth or textured. At one time in history, methods existed for placing the "dimpling" on the paper using the finish, but those haven't been in use for a few decades. Jerry's Nuggets are a prime example of the old method - one side is smooth, the other is dimpled, and it was done by using a different set of cloth rollers for each side. Cloth rollers are playing card-making history, just like the actual original finishes that bore all those names I mentioned.
The biggest reason for the name switch is two-fold. One, it saves the company money to only need one finish for almost every deck they make. Two, modern finishes are chemically superior to most of the old finishes that were being used, providing better handling characteristics at a better value.
But that's just my hypothesis. Go ask Bill and see what he says. Tell him I said hello.
-
Damn boys... chill for a minute... when someone has some accurate information supported with evidence we'll all have the answer... Hate to see two great guys like Randy and Alex battle it out like that... Sheriff Don, I blame you... Ever since you hung up your star and six shooter to moderate the forum, these ruckuses have been sprouting up all over the place... ;)
Edit: Actually re-read and saw that it was Robert & Alex... Randy & Alex seem to be on the same page... So I don't know Robert too well, but nevertheless, try not to fight boys...
-
In my honest opinion, I also agree that ink to stock ratio is also a myth.
Although I am guilty of using the term on a few of my reviews, I really genuinely believe the whole ink theory is false.
The Karnival Inferno being a good example, fans better compared to the white ghosts even though the ghost deck has less "ink saturation". The stock of the inferno also feels stiffer than the actuators which supposedly had a moderate amount of ink saturation.
I only used the term to follow suit what my rivals were saying to make my videos sound more complete. In reality I was just rolling along with the theory.
I will admit although not related to the topic in hand, I did make up the metallic ink cling theory. It's very likely I honestly believed that it's true but I know I made it up. I thought up of the theory and belief when I noticed when my viper tally ho literally did have lots more cling than my black tiger decks.
All in all, Robert's "ink to stock ratio theory" holds no ground compared to my "metallic ink cling theory". It's been reported by many, many users that the Vipers did indeed fan worst than the tigers yet they both used the same stock and finish. The only difference between the two are the use of metallic ink on the vipers.
Robert, your idea behind the ink saturation theory is very far-fetched yet you mock my more logical and practically users proven metallic ink clinging idea. I guess there are some things you can only feel versus research regardless of specs.
-
DelMagic: I just discovered that the Bicycle Archangels were also manufactured using the same process as the Eco Edition, with renewable sources for the paper, vegetable-based inks and a starch-based finish. So that's TWO decks in the marketplace...
JMRock: whoever said I hung up my star and six-shooter? Perhaps when I go to bed, most of the time... :))
DeckReview: YES, there IS indeed practical proof that the metallic ink decks made BEFORE the advent of Magic Finish did suffer in performance. MF was practically created as a direct response to that issue. Not only did the Vipers take a bit of a hit, but who remembers all those early Diavoli decks with metallic ink and crappy performance? Alchemist, Alchemist X, Phoenix...
First deck to use the finish: the metallic-inked Gold Arcane deck.
First deck to use "Magic Finish" on the box: the metallic-inked Bicycle Gargoyles.
First deck to use "Performance Coating" on the box: the slightly metallic-inked Artifice deck.
First smooth-paper deck to use Magic Finish: CARC's Bee Erdnase 1902 black/SILVER Acorn Back in Ivory Finish.
The only non-metallic "first" for Magic Finish was for first deck to use neither "traditional" name for Magic Finish, nor any of USPC's stock finish names: the non-metallic White Arrcos, which called it "Premium Finish".
But back to the point - the only known and confirmed ink factor to affect deck performance in any way would be use of a metallic ink, which is "neutralized" with the use of Magic Finish on the deck. Pre-MF decks with metal ink had relatively poor performance, while newer metal-ink decks coated with MF have excellent performance in comparison to most decks on the market, not just the metal-ink pre-MF ones.
-
I am sorry for posting here.
I can tell that some tempers are getting a little high and I do not wish to fan the fire (ok maybe a little)
But I have found this thread so amusing, that I have to comment.
The thing that is so beautiful about this thread is the anger that has come out of it.
and this is why.
It all boils down to faith Vs. fact.
You see I am a scientist by trade. I work in the technology dept. of a pharmaceutical company. I do deviation management and process improvement. I spend my days (nights actually) investigating and searching fact.
The thing you see in a meeting is when the meeting is based on facts nobody ever really gets that angry. Sure there is frustration that things are not going the way we would wish.
The time anger comes in is when faith gets involved. A manager will get angry when he has faith that a system (that he knows is poorly designed) will work, and it doesn't. If you approach that manager with fact they will often be angry but usually not quite as angry (sometimes they may have to vent the anger towards their underlings). When you go to that manager with faith in an idea that you think will work better when the managers idea fails, both parties usually end up furious and someone has to come to stop it from escalating.
My point here is no facts have been given on either side of the argument, it has all been based on opinion and faith. In fact few posts really in this thread bear any fact, even down to the "proven" metallic ink theory.
I will say Don may have showed us some facts in his last post interspersed with opinion and faith (although without data, I can not vouch for the validity of what he has said)
And that is what I really loved about this post (what makes me love and hate humanity at the same time)
People got so angry over their faith in something as simple as do cards handle better or worse when they have a lot of ink. (even causing someone to rage quit)
And I know, I know, it isn't as little to people in the industry who's sales might be hurt by such rumors, opinion, and faith.
But it is still so grand to look at these first world problems.
I thank you and love you guys.
I really am sorry if this sounds like a huge attack. It is not meant as such. It is just an observation.
and by the way
"Ink to stock ratio: It's not a thing"
actually it IS a thing. Every card has a measurable ratio of the amount of ink compared to the amount of stock (Fact)
Now what might not be a thing is
"High ink to stock ratio makes cards perform worse" (until proven otherwise - opinion)
Thank you and Good Night
-
I am sorry for posting here.
I can tell that some tempers are getting a little high and I do not wish to fan the fire (ok maybe a little)
But I have found this thread so amusing, that I have to comment.
The thing that is so beautiful about this thread is the anger that has come out of it.
and this is why.
It all boils down to faith Vs. fact.
You see I am a scientist by trade. I work in the technology dept. of a pharmaceutical company. I do deviation management and process improvement. I spend my days (nights actually) investigating and searching fact.
The thing you see in a meeting is when the meeting is based on facts nobody ever really gets that angry. Sure there is frustration that things are not going the way we would wish.
The time anger comes in is when faith gets involved. A manager will get angry when he has faith that a system (that he knows is poorly designed) will work, and it doesn't. If you approach that manager with fact they will often be angry but usually not quite as angry (sometimes they may have to vent the anger towards their underlings). When you go to that manager with faith in an idea that you think will work better when the managers idea fails, both parties usually end up furious and someone has to come to stop it from escalating.
My point here is no facts have been given on either side of the argument, it has all been based on opinion and faith. In fact few posts really in this thread bear any fact, even down to the "proven" metallic ink theory.
I will say Don may have showed us some facts in his last post interspersed with opinion and faith (although without data, I can not vouch for the validity of what he has said)
And that is what I really loved about this post (what makes me love and hate humanity at the same time)
People got so angry over their faith in something as simple as do cards handle better or worse when they have a lot of ink. (even causing someone to rage quit)
And I know, I know, it isn't as little to people in the industry who's sales might be hurt by such rumors, opinion, and faith.
But it is still so grand to look at these first world problems.
I thank you and love you guys.
I really am sorry if this sounds like a huge attack. It is not meant as such. It is just an observation.
and by the way
"Ink to stock ratio: It's not a thing"
actually it IS a thing. Every card has a measurable ratio of the amount of ink compared to the amount of stock (Fact)
Now what might not be a thing is
"High ink to stock ratio makes cards perform worse" (until proven otherwise - opinion)
Thank you and Good Night
First, you don't need to apologize for such a well thought-out post!
The anger issues stem from something much deeper than this simple post - there's history there. I'm keeping mum beyond that.
Me, I never have a problem with being corrected when I'm wrong - I'm actually grateful, since I care more about the truth than silly ego issues.
I'll grant that I haven't been applying strict scientific method, but there's a lot of anecdotal evidence about metallic inks and performance. USPC literally created Magic Finish as a response to this problem - and it's original "pre-release" code name was "Performance Coating", a name that the first company to experiment with it opted to keep when it was no longer considered experimental: Ellusionist. Personally, I prefer that name - try convincing a spectator that your deck isn't a trick deck when it has the word "magic" on it!
The finish stuff - not anecdotal. I've seen the price lists and what's offered to deck designers.
The paper stuff - some proof, some anecdote. There seems to be more art than science to it, if you take what USPC says about it as the whole truth! Something that's known for certain: paper quality can vary even within the same print run, and paper quality has been on the decline as the industry uses more and more recycled content. Fewer new fibers, lower quality paper.
The ink-to-stock thing - again, anecdotal. I've experienced extremes of performance in decks having varying amounts of ink, with no consistent relationship between ink and stock. I can speak with a little authority based on the size of my collection: about 500+ unique deck styles, about 1,300 decks in total. (And all that since December of 2010... Pity my bank account...) :)) And I've opened and used nearly every unique deck I've obtained.
-
I can speak only from my personal, anecdotal experience with the decks I own. My worst handling deck is the Theory11 original sentinels. I think they used super glue as the coating of that deck.
With that exception out of the way, I'd say that my most clumpy, poorest handling decks are generally the D&D decks. Not sure why, but (though I love the design) the Clip Joints and Ace Fultons seem to get rather clumpy in a very short amount of time. 20-30 minutes versus perhaps several hours of constant use. My Fantastiques came out of the box with a bad crown to the cards, quite warped. Those are all predominantly white decks with relatively low ink.
The best handling decks I have are both black. Again, this is just to my own hands and environment, I can't speak for you. My Tally-Ho Vipers and my Tendril deck have been smooth and fannable for very long amounts of time. I have one Tendril decks that I've used multiple times a week since I got the shipment of them months ago, and they still fan very nicely. And recall I live in terribly humid south Florida.
As I've gotten a little more experience with different decks, my primary concern now is stock, but only from the point of view of the thickness and snap. I love the stock I did Tendril on and will most likely use that again. Magic finish is a given, I honestly don't think you'd pick anything else when designing a deck. I haven't thought about ink levels once when working on Aurum.
USPCC has generally narrowed the choices down to the point that pretty much any combo will work out fine. Choose magic finish, pick the stock you like the snappiness of and move right along.
And really, has "poor handling" really stopped any of you from buying a deck? I'd wager not. :)
-
I can speak only from my personal, anecdotal experience with the decks I own. My worst handling deck is the Theory11 original sentinels. I think they used super glue as the coating of that deck.
With that exception out of the way, I'd say that my most clumpy, poorest handling decks are generally the D&D decks. Not sure why, but (though I love the design) the Clip Joints and Ace Fultons seem to get rather clumpy in a very short amount of time. 20-30 minutes versus perhaps several hours of constant use. My Fantastiques came out of the box with a bad crown to the cards, quite warped. Those are all predominantly white decks with relatively low ink.
The best handling decks I have are both black. Again, this is just to my own hands and environment, I can't speak for you. My Tally-Ho Vipers and my Tendril deck have been smooth and fannable for very long amounts of time. I have one Tendril decks that I've used multiple times a week since I got the shipment of them months ago, and they still fan very nicely. And recall I live in terribly humid south Florida.
As I've gotten a little more experience with different decks, my primary concern now is stock, but only from the point of view of the thickness and snap. I love the stock I did Tendril on and will most likely use that again. Magic finish is a given, I honestly don't think you'd pick anything else when designing a deck. I haven't thought about ink levels once when working on Aurum.
USPCC has generally narrowed the choices down to the point that pretty much any combo will work out fine. Choose magic finish, pick the stock you like the snappiness of and move right along.
And really, has "poor handling" really stopped any of you from buying a deck? I'd wager not. :)
The new Sentinels are a world apart from the old ones. VERY smooth.
And yes, I've chosen to not buy poorly-handling decks. It's one of many reasons I stopped getting D&D decks! But it's also because as a collector, I've become more selective, and who needs to spend money on a crap deck? There's too many good choices to bother with a lousy one.
Nowadays, nearly any USPC deck has fine handling out of the box. Especially if it has Magic Finish on it. I've heard rumor that Magic Finish wears out faster than some would like, but it's just rumor - I have no proof either way.
-
I admit this post will probably be not as well written or as thought out as what you guys have been putting out but I'll try.
I do believe in stock to ink ratio, in fact I went and grabbed my Americana deck and an NOC deck, which use the same stock and finish and after playing with each one for awhile the Americana started to clump up faster but before it started clumping up, it fanned quite a lot better than the NOC deck. The White Ghost deck ( air cushion ) did not fan as well for me as the Black ghost deck ( also air cushion ) ( v2 ) but there definitely was a difference in even-ness. Which really intrigued me, I don't have any theories on this other than that it varies person to person.
All this debate is not helped by pretend finishes out there like Premium 909 or putting different finishes on the box than the actual cards causing placebo effects and in turn causing people to tell stories that are not proven facts.
so Utterfool, ( you seem a lot more intelligent than your display name implies ) I don't think more ink means worse performance, I really think it varies person to person.
Also deckreview, I looked at my viper deck, it isn't really metallic ink, its a grey made to look like metallic ink because the finish is kind of glossy giving the illusion of metallic ink, unless I somehow got a deck without metallic ink ( I bought mine from Ellusionist recently, it has UV-500 Airflow ) Since it is my only UV-500 deck, I cannot compare it to other decks. So I won't say more about the vipers.
I think metallic ink does in fact make a deck worse, since my Alchemy deck ( with a full gold metallic inked back ) fanned pretty bad.
But after all is being said, you cannot deny that an inky deck definitely feels different from a not so inky deck with the same stock and finish. That different might be good or might be bad, varies from person to person. I personally love inky decks they, perform better for me, such a pity they seem to be less durable. Since I believe it's a person to person thing, I don't think you can prove one is better than the other.
You may have different opinions, you probably do but I really thank you for taking the time to read my opinions and discoveries.
I generally agree with Encarded and his post made me think that humidity levels may have something to do with how inky decks handle compared to less inky ones. I live it the perpetually hot and humid Singapore where the weather report for 30 years is the same forever.
-
I live it the perpetually hot and humid Singapore where the weather report for 30 years is the same forever.
That statement right there makes it hard to call your experiences typical. No deck will perform well over time under those conditions - the sturdiest deck for you, aside from something made of plastic, would be Aladdin 1001s with Smooth Finish. The heat and humidity can even affect the deck while it's still in the box!
But I will agree that it's very subjective and there's not even anecdotal evidence supporting the claims that "heavily-inked" decks perform better or worse than "lightly-inked" decks because of the difference in the amount of ink used.
Ink-to-stock is real only in the sense that you have paper and it absorbs ink. But as far as having an effect on performance - no proof either way that the ink is a factor.
-
DelMagic: I just discovered that the Bicycle Archangels were also manufactured using the same process as the Eco Edition, with renewable sources for the paper, vegetable-based inks and a starch-based finish. So that's TWO decks in the marketplace...
JMRock: whoever said I hung up my star and six-shooter? Perhaps when I go to bed, most of the time... :))
DeckReview: YES, there IS indeed practical proof that the metallic ink decks made BEFORE the advent of Magic Finish did suffer in performance. MF was practically created as a direct response to that issue. Not only did the Vipers take a bit of a hit, but who remembers all those early Diavoli decks with metallic ink and crappy performance? Alchemist, Alchemist X, Phoenix...
First deck to use the finish: the metallic-inked Gold Arcane deck.
First deck to use "Magic Finish" on the box: the metallic-inked Bicycle Brimstone.
First deck to use "Performance Coating" on the box: the slightly metallic-inked Artifice deck.
First smooth-paper deck to use Magic Finish: CARC's Bee Erdnase 1902 black/SILVER Acorn Back in Ivory Finish.
The only non-metallic "first" for Magic Finish was for first deck to use neither "traditional" name for Magic Finish, nor any of USPC's stock finish names: the non-metallic White Arrcos, which called it "Premium Finish".
But back to the point - the only known and confirmed ink factor to affect deck performance in any way would be use of a metallic ink, which is "neutralized" with the use of Magic Finish on the deck. Pre-MF decks with metal ink had relatively poor performance, while newer metal-ink decks coated with MF have excellent performance in comparison to most decks on the market, not just the metal-ink pre-MF ones.
Fixed tbh, get yo facts right before posting ;).
I love how this is almost like a controversy now, do we all really care about a so called ink to stocks ratio? As long as my decks handles well i'm extremely happy. And yes don you are correct about there is more to this argument between rob and alex beside ink to stock, don't know if that's in this quote or not your posts are so long i don't care to read them again. This is to Rob and Alex. Feelings were hurt, get over it it has been months, lets just keep it about cards and not clashes between you 2 from now on, :D
-
Well, I asked USPCC about the ink base:
I am a magician and playing card collector. On one of the forums I visit, people were discussing the impact of the amount of ink on a card and how it handles. I'm not looking for an answer on that question.
However, I was wondering if the base liquid used in the ink solutions you apply to playing card stock was water-based (aqueous) or solvent-based (organic). If it isn't a secret, could you please let me know what it is in general? I am not looking for a specific recipe or formulation which I realize would be proprietary. I am just looking for a general description.
Thank you.
____________________________________
Their answer (not exactly helpful):
The inks we use to print our cards are based on the conventional lithographic process.
The majority of information from basic ink research would provide a good understanding of the art.
Regards,
Consumer Relations
-
So pretty much they said:
"This is confidential information, we can't tell you much of anything."
-
Seems like they gave a very political answer to avoid your question almost entirely.
What type of ink do you use? We use a lithographic process.
Oh USPCC.
-
Seems like they gave a very political answer to avoid your question almost entirely.
What type of ink do you use? We use a lithographic process.
Oh USPCC.
I sort of understand them though. If they revealed their trade secrets and didn't have such a strong reputation, french, spanish companies and other great ones such as Brahma Playing cards would have already outgunned them!
-
Well guys, we now know that they use a printing press to make their cards. That determines that more ink and less ink do not affect performance ;)
-
Their answer is basically spend 15 minutes and do the research yourself. :P
Still, it would be helpful to know the type of ink they use before diving into ink theory. There is no way ink could mess up paper and cause performance issues.
-
Ok
Here is the experiment that can be conducted to end this argument
This will cost a bit of money. But it can easily be made a blinded experiment so that the opinion will be based solely on the handling and feel and have no bias by opinions towards if one "believes" a deck with higher ink ratio performs worse or not. it can also easily be made double blinded (which is the experiment I will describe below)
this is the preparation
deck creation
you will need to create a deck in limited number. You can go with the Bicycle site that lets you create small runs or if you wish to save money go with Brahma or some other small company.
To eliminate the possibility that difference in handling might be due to different runs of paper stock or formulations of finish the deck will be half of the cards with a high ratio of ink to stock and half with a low ratio of ink to stock. Best would be 28 cards on each uncut sheet be all black and 28 be all white. this gives the greatest difference in ratio, It will also guarantee that the stock is exactly the same and that the finish is exactly the same for each deck. I am not an expert handler or flourisher, so if it is the case that you need a full deck to accurately test flourishes and what not you simply combine the whites to whites from two decks and the blacks to blacks from the same deck (this will insure that the two full decks are still equal in all ways but ink ratio)
before the experiment the decks should all be boxed up in identical boxes and placed in 2 deck sets. 50% of the boxes will have black decks on top and 50% will have white decks on top.
Blind creation
you will need to create that a test subject can not see into. It should have enough room so they can move their hands and arms about easily inside. and probably a dark cloth covering the front. Of course a simple blind fold would do as well, but being blind folded is sometimes disturbing to the test subject.
test subject
it would be best to get a sample size of >100 if possible I would not go less than 50 though just for accuracy of the statistics.
the persons back ground is not important, but at the same time it would not hurt the truth of the results by biasing the sample population to those who are familiar with handling and the feel of cards. using experienced flourishers actually may be helpful so the cards can be put to the full test. This part is certainly up for debate because some would say for a true test you need a fully deverse sample and others would say for a true test you need to fully utilize the cards.
Double blind experiment
A group of the boxed deck sets are given to each experimenter.
The experimenter places the top deck in the box in front of the test subject (or just hands it to them if they are blind folded.
the experimenter will not know which deck they gave to the test subject first until the test subject opens it.
the test subject will then use this deck for a designated time period (lets say 15 minutes) and then place it back in the box.
the experimenter will then provide the test subject with the bottom deck and the test subject will then use that deck for the same period of time.
The test subject will then ask which deck they felt performed/handled better, and will record the result.
Because the experimenter did not know which deck he gave the test subject first he is in a blind and is therefore unbiased (can't show there bias)
Because the test subject can not see the deck they are performing with he is blind and is therefore unbiased.
If this experiment is continued with a large enough sample a statistically significant result can be shown that will guide with fact which, if any, is better.
A result of more choosing the low ink ratio would show that High ink ratio does indeed make the handling worse
A result of people choosing relatively equally would show that there is indeed no effect from the ink ratio to handling
A result of more people choosing the high ink ratio would show that high ink ratio actually makes cards handle better.
It was mentioned above by someone else who I can not remember, that there is the placebo effect around decks. there are in fact many placebo a effects around branded items.
If someone has heard a bad review of a deck by someone they respect, they tend to like that deck, and vice versus. If they have had a deck handle badly from a company in the past they will tend to find that all their decks handle poorly, and vice versus. If they have had a deck with high ratio of ink to card stock perform great in the past they will tend to find that they feel all decks with high ink perform well, and vice versus. If they like a particular finish, dislike a card stock, were beaten with a brick of Arrcos as a child these will all affect they way they perceive a deck handling.
Until this experiment or one similar to this is done any information about ink to card stock ratio will be just opinion. Even if this information comes from a large company (though they might have a closer to real answer because they will draw from a larger sample)
Opinions are like orgasms.... I don't care if you have one :D ;)
-
Unless someone actually bothers to go round to doing the experiment as stated by Utterfool we will still have to deal anecdotal evidence, ( the best kind of evidence ever ).
You really got me with ' beaten with a brick of arrcos as a child '.
Laughed more than I should have.
But perhaps a flaw with the experiment is that an person who has experienced black decks before can definitely feel whether a deck is inky or not even when blind folded and gagged. So in their mind they would go *click* this is the inky one therefore its worse or something like that.
-
The thing about doing an experiment with a hypothesis is that the hypothesis is not true until proven true.
In this case, the hypothesis is that ink:stock ratio negatively impacts a deck of cards when the saturation is high.
There is no evidence to support the case. Most anecdotal evidence supports the opposite.
Even with the experiment UF proposed, the variables are too high to count. We know for a fact that if ink saturation has any effect whatsoever, that effect is extremely minuscule. There are so many things along those lines that can affect handling it's crazy.
Which is why it's absolutely idiotic to rate a deck of cards on something that is barely even a legitimate hypothesis.
The point I am making this entire time is that it's one thing to propose an idea, and then test it to see if it's true. It's a completely different ball game when you come up with an idea, tell everyone it's true, create ratings systems out of them, tell reviewers that they should review based on this idea, and turn it into a real thing when it is anything but.
Think of it like this: There are tons of theories about the universe. One of the cool ones is a multiverse concept. It is literally an idea someone had and goes very little beyond that. At this point in time it is not testable. Do we put this idea into text books? Do we have scientists doing work under the assumption that this idea is the truth?
No.
Because that would be fucking stupid.
:]
-
Before I go into the discussion below I will state my belief on this subject for the record
"I believe that with the modern materials used any deck that is made out of high quality materials will have basically the same handling"
"I believe that handling comes down to individual preference and bias"
"any deck that genuinely handles badly or "worse" is due to the conditions on the day of manufacture each of the decks components and also of the deck , as well as the storage, and climate "
"I also believe that if someone likes a deck design sufficiently they will overlook any handling issues, even possibly to the extremes of a papercut on every fan"
The thing about doing an experiment with a hypothesis is that the hypothesis is not true until proven true.
In this case, the hypothesis is that ink:stock ratio negatively impacts a deck of cards when the saturation is high.
There is no evidence to support the case. Most anecdotal evidence supports the opposite.
Even with the experiment UF proposed, the variables are too high to count. We know for a fact that if ink saturation has any effect whatsoever, that effect is extremely minuscule. There are so many things along those lines that can affect handling it's crazy.
Which is why it's absolutely idiotic to rate a deck of cards on something that is barely even a legitimate hypothesis.
Actually in the above experiment I failed to state a hypothesis. I apologize for that, it allowed others to assume a hypothesis to continue the argument
An appropriate hypothesis should always, if possible, be the null hypothesis
In this case " The level of ink saturation has no affect to the handling of the cards."
Choosing a hypothesis with 2 possible outcomes is always preferable to one that has more.
In this case
Prove the Hypothesis
"Yes there is no affect to the handling of the cards created from the ink ratio in the cards"
Disprove the hypothesis
"No, there is an affect from the ink ratio on the handling of the cards"
If the affect is positive or negative can be gathered from the data.
As far as the idea of so many minuscule differences that affect handling
Yes this is exactly true and by making the deck at the same time on the same uncut sheet storing them both in the same location and conditions. You are eliminating the majority if not all of those minuscule differences.
The point I am making this entire time is that it's one thing to propose an idea, and then test it to see if it's true. It's a completely different ball game when you come up with an idea, tell everyone it's true, create ratings systems out of them, tell reviewers that they should review based on this idea, and turn it into a real thing when it is anything but.
this is precisely why factual evidence needs to be gathered.
there is absolutely no way to change everyone's mind with an opinion. It is nigh impossible enough with fact.
This idea was born either out of anecdotal evidence or on a whim. However it was born in gained credence through use and now some people believe it and will continue to believe it no matter how much some people argue strongly against it or poorly for it.
In this case Alex
Your argument against it was poor and left room for a greater discussion/argument that may or may not have solidified the belief in some peoples mind.
You, in the same sentence, gave "factual evidence" in favor of a difference in the handling of cards due to the ink ratio, and then shot it down with your opinion of that fact.
The best example is here:
Now the fact is, if you drench a piece of printer paper in black ink, that paper will feel completely different than an unsaturated one. The difference is almost negligible, but it's there. However, paper is significantly less thick than playing card paste board.
If you truthfully feel that this bias is damaging to sales and a blight on the community you would support the idea of finding proof, not just badger another post with your opinion.
However I feel that this argument exists for argument sake (which is completely valid, especially on a discussion board)
In such situations one does not really care the outcome of the argument as long as they get the last word.
To address the thoughts of Redtank151
But perhaps a flaw with the experiment is that an person who has experienced black decks before can definitely feel whether a deck is inky or not even when blind folded and gagged. So in their mind they would go *click* this is the inky one therefore its worse or something like that.
I do not see this as a flaw, as feel of a deck is part of the handling. If an expert can truthfully feel the difference between a highly saturated deck and a not highly saturated deck, then there is a difference between the two and the hypothesis is voided.
If they can't and they just believe they can, well then statistically they will chose correctly 50% of the time and the hypothesis will be proven.
To eliminate this possibility of bias altogether, is why I suggested having a large sample of varying experience and talent.
-
Anyways, what is a "better handling deck"? To my sister, it's one that isn't too slippery out of the box. To me, it's one that remains slippery forever. Cardists don't mind when the deck sticks together, while magicians like the opposite. So this experiment wouldn't really lead to anything. Just different opinions from different people. It's a good idea but anyways, in 15 minutes, I doubt the deck would be broken down.
-
So this experiment wouldn't really lead to anything. Just different opinions from different people. It's a good idea but anyways, in 15 minutes, I doubt the deck would be broken down.
15minutes ... 15 minutes, that random number I pulled out of my ass as an example is all that you grasped from my post.
Wow
The point is really lost on this crowd.
I suppose i will stop trying to be helpful and or informative.
-
The thing about doing an experiment with a hypothesis is that the hypothesis is not true until proven true.
In this case, the hypothesis is that ink:stock ratio negatively impacts a deck of cards when the saturation is high.
There is no evidence to support the case. Most anecdotal evidence supports the opposite.
Even with the experiment UF proposed, the variables are too high to count. We know for a fact that if ink saturation has any effect whatsoever, that effect is extremely minuscule. There are so many things along those lines that can affect handling it's crazy.
Which is why it's absolutely idiotic to rate a deck of cards on something that is barely even a legitimate hypothesis.
The point I am making this entire time is that it's one thing to propose an idea, and then test it to see if it's true. It's a completely different ball game when you come up with an idea, tell everyone it's true, create ratings systems out of them, tell reviewers that they should review based on this idea, and turn it into a real thing when it is anything but.
Think of it like this: There are tons of theories about the universe. One of the cool ones is a multiverse concept. It is literally an idea someone had and goes very little beyond that. At this point in time it is not testable. Do we put this idea into text books? Do we have scientists doing work under the assumption that this idea is the truth?
No.
Because that would be fucking stupid.
:]
Hahaha that could be the best post I have ever read :) ;D
-
So this experiment wouldn't really lead to anything. Just different opinions from different people. It's a good idea but anyways, in 15 minutes, I doubt the deck would be broken down.
15minutes ... 15 minutes, that random number I pulled out of my ass as an example is all that you grasped from my post.
Wow
The point is really lost on this crowd.
I suppose i will stop trying to be helpful and or informative.
Hey, don't take it in a wrong way. It's a great idea. Someone should do it. But I don't think it would proove to be very efficient since one person's "good" deck may be another one's "bad" deck in terms of handling. That was the point I was making.
-
[Something that's known for certain: paper quality can vary even within the same print run,
Absolute truth. With the recent experience with my own Grid deck, I've also noticed a change in seperate decks. The first deck I carried with me suddenly became clumpy and wouldn't fan for crap, yet another "identical" deck I began carrying for the exact same amount of time still comes out the box as it did when i first opened it.
As for the 2 finishes, once again absolute truth. When I began production with The Grid and began prepping our next deck I had contacted 2 seperate people from USPCC on numerous occasions about the finishes and got the same reply, only 2 finishes really exist. In their own words "the rest is just marketing"
I think most reviews are becoming obsolete considering if it's a deck from USPCC it's going to handle exactly the same as another deck (with the exception of "magic and smooth" finish) Personally, at this point, reviews should begin focusing on the design aspects of the decks rather than the handling, unless it's a different manufacturer.
As for the Ink to Stock ratio, logically I would assume the amount of ink would matter. However, this isn't your uncle bobs printing service. So I would think the USPCC's technique would no longer effect the stock. Remember, our fingers don't touch the ink, they touch the finish. So maybe it's the durability of the finish that would effect handling, not the ink. Just a thought.
-
I have one thing to add, would it not be possible that a White deck if this theory existed could have more ink than a black? Because they are still using white ink on the stock so it would be close to equal in black and white decks.
-
I have one thing to add, would it not be possible that a White deck if this theory existed could have more ink than a black? Because they are still using white ink on the stock so it would be close to equal in black and white decks.
Now if this is a fact.
Then really the whole argument from the beginning is moot, with neither side being correct.
Because this would mean all decks would be completely saturated with ink and have relatively the same ink to card stock ratio.
the new argument that would have to be started, with people taking sides is "is there an affect on handling from using dark inks versus light inks"
and if that is the case then I can jump on the band wagon and say there is definitely an affect " I know without a doubt that red inks (and any color that contains red) handle much worse then blue inks"
In fact I am going to go do a bunch of deck reviews right now touting that theory. :t11:
-
So this experiment wouldn't really lead to anything. Just different opinions from different people. It's a good idea but anyways, in 15 minutes, I doubt the deck would be broken down.
15minutes ... 15 minutes, that random number I pulled out of my ass as an example is all that you grasped from my post.
Wow
The point is really lost on this crowd.
I suppose i will stop trying to be helpful and or informative.
I doubt the entire community took away the same thing as Nathan from your post. This isn't a hivemind, but it would be pretty cool if it was.
-
And yes don you are correct about there is more to this argument between rob and alex beside ink to stock, don't know if that's in this quote or not your posts are so long i don't care to read them again. This is to Rob and Alex. Feelings were hurt, get over it it has been months, lets just keep it about cards and not clashes between you 2 from now on, :D
He actually got miffed that I seemed to be arbitrarily siding with Alex and blacklisted me on Facebook. It's become childish at this point - he needs to get over this nonsense and move on, or become irrelevant.
Guys, lacking any real, measurable proof and a means to eliminate other possible influences, you can't say whether or not the amount of ink used on a given stock has any effect. We don't even have a means by which to MEASURE the amount of ink absorbed by a given stock!
Running around in circles over this is pointless, and trying to use a metric that can't even be measured as a means to evaluate anything is absurd.
That's all I've got left to say on this topic, at least until someone busts out their science degree and professional-grade laboratory and starts testing.
-
Now comes another add on to the ink to stock debate that makes the idea technically true to this extent.
For the sake of everything, assume a black sharpie is used and we're talking USPCC cards
Sharpie Methods, the method of using a permanent marker to color the edges of your deck, does not affect the handling of your playing cards if your deck was already black. The feel is not 100% the same but the handling is very identical to the unsharpied deck. To sum it up for the black decks, additional ink don't do a thing.
Sharpie a white deck though, then the handling is reportedly inferior and that's because of the additional ink. The ink soaking in the edges reportedly makes for bad fans according to CardsRFun, concerning white decks of course.
The reasoning behind this?
Black decks were designed to have ink all over the cards.
White decks have a finish designed for only the ink on the cards.
I'm gonna have an experiment with the UV500 Shadow Masters and the UV500 Blue Masters using the same brand sharpie. They both have the same exact stock and finish so technically the handling for both decks should be impervious to the ink.
We might learn a thing or two, maybe even find out the truth. Do black UV500 ellusionist's decks really have the same finish as the white UV500 cards?
EDIT
After about 5 minutes of searching for a UV500 Shadow Masters deck, I can say without a doubt that they are very hard to find.
I might do the experiment with the modern black and white arcane decks being of course probably the most ideal decks to test anyways
-
Now comes another add on to the ink to stock debate that makes the idea technically true to this extent.
For the sake of everything, assume a black sharpie is used and we're talking USPCC cards
Sharpie Methods, the method of using a permanent marker to color the edges of your deck, does not affect the handling of your playing cards if your deck was already black. The feel is not 100% the same but the handling is very identical to the unsharpied deck. To sum it up for the black decks, additional ink don't do a thing.
Sharpie a white deck though, then the handling is reportedly inferior and that's because of the additional ink. The ink soaking in the edges reportedly makes for bad fans according to CardsRFun, concerning white decks of course.
The reasoning behind this?
Black decks were designed to have ink all over the cards.
White decks have a finish designed for only the ink on the cards.
I'm gonna have an experiment with the UV500 Shadow Masters and the UV500 Blue Masters using the same brand sharpie. They both have the same exact stock and finish so technically the handling for both decks should be impervious to the ink.
We might learn a thing or two, maybe even find out the truth. Do black UV500 ellusionist's decks really have the same finish as the white UV500 cards?
EDIT
After about 5 minutes of searching for a UV500 Shadow Masters deck, I can say without a doubt that they are very hard to find.
I might do the experiment with the modern black and white arcane decks being of course probably the most ideal decks to test anyways
UV500 is Cincinnati, and our knowledge of how USPCC worked back then is very, very convoluted at best.
We know exactly what USPCC does in Kentucky. Two coatings: Magic and Air-Cushion. Two stocks: Bicycle and Bee (Aristocrat has been "discontinued" and Bicycle stock is now using the old Aristocrat paper). Then there are Casino grade stocks. Then you can choose textured or smooth cards.
Finishes are not applied to the edges of cards, which is why a tiny drop of water on the surface of a card can be quickly wiped off, while a drop on the edge soaks all the way through and ruins the card.
As for sharpie-ing a deck on the edges, this is easy to test. I don't really trust CardsRfun's opinion on the matter, since his video is years old, based on Cincinnati, and he was reviewing in a time where having facts was next to impossible.
I did just Sharpie a Vortex before writing this post, seems to still handle fine. No idea how it will stand the test of time, though.
I did some Googling, it seems that Sharpies are aqueous based inks, and cannot apply on UV-coating.
UV Coating is a slick, glossy coating applied to the printed paper surface and dried on press with ultraviolet (UV) light. The high gloss surface of UV coating makes it eye catching, and therefore very popular for printing the covers of paperback novels and other print products that are meant to gain immediate attention.
UV Coating is mainly popular among club flyers and other promotional items. It is not suggested to get commercial products or postcards. You cannot write on UV coating, not even with a Sharpie™ Marker.
Either way, this is all Cincinnati talk.
-
I'm not sure whether the ink to stock ratio thing exists but as a flourisher and a reviewer I can tell you that primarily it is the stock and finish that makes a deck handle. The ink could play a role. I'm not certain. Although I thought I'd bring this up as mentioned before, the finish is a way to counter the ink hindering things eg. magic finish on metallic decks. But really to flourishers if a deck handles well and we like it we'll use it.
-
Now comes another add on to the ink to stock debate that makes the idea technically true to this extent.
For the sake of everything, assume a black sharpie is used and we're talking USPCC cards
Sharpie Methods, the method of using a permanent marker to color the edges of your deck, does not affect the handling of your playing cards if your deck was already black. The feel is not 100% the same but the handling is very identical to the unsharpied deck. To sum it up for the black decks, additional ink don't do a thing.
Sharpie a white deck though, then the handling is reportedly inferior and that's because of the additional ink. The ink soaking in the edges reportedly makes for bad fans according to CardsRFun, concerning white decks of course.
The reasoning behind this?
Black decks were designed to have ink all over the cards.
White decks have a finish designed for only the ink on the cards.
I'm gonna have an experiment with the UV500 Shadow Masters and the UV500 Blue Masters using the same brand sharpie. They both have the same exact stock and finish so technically the handling for both decks should be impervious to the ink.
We might learn a thing or two, maybe even find out the truth. Do black UV500 ellusionist's decks really have the same finish as the white UV500 cards?
EDIT
After about 5 minutes of searching for a UV500 Shadow Masters deck, I can say without a doubt that they are very hard to find.
I might do the experiment with the modern black and white arcane decks being of course probably the most ideal decks to test anyways
UV500 is Cincinnati, and our knowledge of how USPCC worked back then is very, very convoluted at best.
We know exactly what USPCC does in Kentucky. Two coatings: Magic and Air-Cushion. Two stocks: Bicycle and Bee (Aristocrat has been "discontinued" and Bicycle stock is now using the old Aristocrat paper). Then there are Casino grade stocks. Then you can choose textured or smooth cards.
Finishes are not applied to the edges of cards, which is why a tiny drop of water on the surface of a card can be quickly wiped off, while a drop on the edge soaks all the way through and ruins the card.
As for sharpie-ing a deck on the edges, this is easy to test. I don't really trust CardsRfun's opinion on the matter, since his video is years old, based on Cincinnati, and he was reviewing in a time where having facts was next to impossible.
I did just Sharpie a Vortex before writing this post, seems to still handle fine. No idea how it will stand the test of time, though.
I did some Googling, it seems that Sharpies are aqueous based inks, and cannot apply on UV-coating.
UV Coating is a slick, glossy coating applied to the printed paper surface and dried on press with ultraviolet (UV) light. The high gloss surface of UV coating makes it eye catching, and therefore very popular for printing the covers of paperback novels and other print products that are meant to gain immediate attention.
UV Coating is mainly popular among club flyers and other promotional items. It is not suggested to get commercial products or postcards. You cannot write on UV coating, not even with a Sharpie™ Marker.
Either way, this is all Cincinnati talk.
Ellusionist has stated in the past that their UV500 stock was the source of the ultraviolet light reflectiveness, not the finish. The finish was "Air Flow", which is probably just another marketing term for Air Cushion. People do write on UV500 Air Flow cards in sliver Sharpie ink and it comes out just fine. I've even seen red and blue, though they certainly don't stand out as much.
As far as performance with a marker-edged deck, they'll shuffle OK, the edges will feel different, much of the characteristics will be the same, but any kind of weave shuffle (including a faro) would be pretty difficult. The ink does soak in at the edge of the card and cause some "damage," much like water does but it doesn't cause the same level of damage as water. With irregular thickening of the edge, it's like trying to faro a pack of Chinese-made Streamlines... (Trust me, it just doesn't happen...)