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.
