PlayingCardForum.com - A Discourse For Playing Cards
Playing Card Chat ♠ ♥ ♣ ♦ => Playing Card Plethora => Topic started by: badpete69 on November 25, 2013, 02:56:10 PM
-
Very pricey but interesting I guess
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/connielim/decked-out-fashion-playing-cards (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/connielim/decked-out-fashion-playing-cards)
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/001/379/147/dd4e3cdec7990695cea986a1da808767_large.jpg?1385454218)
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/001/379/242/0cb385d2c2ec9916048d3dc28cc4c6d6_large.jpg?1385458361)
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/001/367/909/53717cae52ed7138757d207979c7a0b0_large.jpg?1385205612)
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/001/367/928/4cef382720f4d6f70aa64b98ad3ef25f_large.jpg?1385206066)
-
Fantastic illistrations, but $70.00 for a single deck? Am I reading that correctly? ???
-
Yep...I pledged for now..I want to find out more info before I make a final decision
-
I would have backed these but for that price, I'm out. $15 delivery charge as well, crazy.
-
Nosejam...I sold a deck last week to someone in Switzerland and the shipping there was just over $12, if you count the $1.75 for the padded envelope , it is very close to $15. I agree that if you are in Canada $15 is indeed steep but to Europe and Asia $15 is close to the norm
-
Nosejam...I sold a deck last week to someone in Switzerland and the shipping there was just over $12, if you count the $1.75 for the padded envelope , it is very close to $15. I agree that if you are in Canada $15 is indeed steep but to Europe and Asia $15 is close to the norm
I haven't really looked into it, just basing it off what other KS projects charge for their delivery. Didn't Jackson apologise for the cost of delivery for his Sherlock deck, and that's $9.
She seems to have picked up a few backers so far, I suppose the higher price means you need less backers to reach your target as well.
-
Nosejam...I sold a deck last week to someone in Switzerland and the shipping there was just over $12, if you count the $1.75 for the padded envelope , it is very close to $15. I agree that if you are in Canada $15 is indeed steep but to Europe and Asia $15 is close to the norm
I haven't really looked into it, just basing it off what other KS projects charge for their delivery. Didn't Jackson apologise for the cost of delivery for his Sherlock deck, and that's $9.
She seems to have picked up a few backers so far, I suppose the higher price means you need less backers to reach your target as well.
I don't think Jackson so much as apologize, but truthfully admitted that the cost of international shipping is high, state that USPS prices will go up come Jan 2014 and provide a chart of what it currently cost him to ship to France from Texas based on current price.
It's a nice art deck, but the price is a bit steep. I'm curious as to the printer. I doubt anyone would perform with this deck, but hopefully it's a decent printer to better capture the art when it's printed.
-
Even if it was only about 10 or 12 dollars, this deck is a resounding "meh".
Just seems like a bunch of art was splattered onto a card template without rhyme or reason. The indices overlap the art on some, and don't on others. Some cards have the same amount of figures as their value, others don't. Even the theme of the suits lacks consistency.
The back is a lazy 1-way, the printer isn't specified, and the price tag is ludicrous.
-
Mmmm.. Yeah I saw the $70 for one deck and $125 for two... I'm out haha.
They nice sketches, but $70 a deck isn't really justifiable to me.
-
Even if it was only about 10 or 12 dollars, this deck is a resounding "meh".
Just seems like a bunch of art was splattered onto a card template without rhyme or reason. The indices overlap the art on some, and don't on others. Some cards have the same amount of figures as their value, others don't. Even the theme of the suits lacks consistency.
The back is a lazy 1-way, the printer isn't specified, and the price tag is ludicrous.
I find it hilarious that you're judging an obviously artistic centred deck with the norms of a regular deck of playing cards. That's ridiculous. I take offence personally when people like you blatantly state that it "just seems like a bunch of art was splattered onto a card template without rhyme or reason", especially when it is very obvious (at least to a graphite illustrator like myself) how much time and effort was put into the expression, proportion and intricacy of every single illustration. You have absolutely no idea.
Sure, a community like us playing card fanatics would love to see creators that are knowledgable with our niche hobby. A 2 way back would be nice (and easily achievable with the current design). Refinements with the indices would be preferable (also easily achievable), and the lack of printer disclosure simply demonstrates that the creator does not know the importance of USPCC printing. Her project is entirely artistic based.
The price tag is definitely up there for a product with such an elastic demand. But that's about the only point i agree with you on.
-
Even if it was only about 10 or 12 dollars, this deck is a resounding "meh".
Just seems like a bunch of art was splattered onto a card template without rhyme or reason. The indices overlap the art on some, and don't on others. Some cards have the same amount of figures as their value, others don't. Even the theme of the suits lacks consistency.
The back is a lazy 1-way, the printer isn't specified, and the price tag is ludicrous.
I find it hilarious that you're judging an obviously artistic centred deck with the norms of a regular deck of playing cards. That's ridiculous. I take offence personally when people like you blatantly state that it "just seems like a bunch of art was splattered onto a card template without rhyme or reason", especially when it is very obvious (at least to a graphite illustrator like myself) how much time and effort was put into the expression, proportion and intricacy of every single illustration. You have absolutely no idea.
Sure, a community like us playing card fanatics would love to see creators that are knowledgable with our niche hobby. A 2 way back would be nice (and easily achievable with the current design). Refinements with the indices would be preferable (also easily achievable), and the lack of printer disclosure simply demonstrates that the creator does not know the importance of USPCC printing. Her project is entirely artistic based.
The price tag is definitely up there for a product with such an elastic demand. But that's about the only point i agree with you on.
Art decks should still function as good playing cards decks. Look at the Stranger&Stranger Ultimate deck. The Curator deck. The Clipped Wings deck. I'm not saying the art isn't good, I'm saying it doesn't belong on a deck.
An art portfolio would be a much better option. It kind of seems like she just up one day and said "Well, I have all this art. I guess I'll just put it on a card deck".
Even from an art-centered standpoint, consistency is still an issue. Why does all the art on the 4s, 2s, and 3s have a connection to the value of the cards, but the rest of the cards don't? Why is the suit clearly visible in some drawings, but nonexistent in others? It would need to either be completely random or completely coherent. 1/2 way just looks kind of weird.
And I'm sorry, but that back design is just lazy.
-
I've been following Connie's work for years (she's worked on this deck off and on), and she's extremely talented. Connie has a huge following online as well.
When I asked her on Instagram if she's going to be printing with USPCC, she replied that she's looking to print with admagic or cartamundi.
-
Art decks should still function as good playing cards decks. Look at the Stranger&Stranger Ultimate deck. The Curator deck. The Clipped Wings deck. I'm not saying the art isn't good, I'm saying it doesn't belong on a deck.
An art portfolio would be a much better option. It kind of seems like she just up one day and said "Well, I have all this art. I guess I'll just put it on a card deck".
Even from an art-centered standpoint, consistency is still an issue. Why does all the art on the 4s, 2s, and 3s have a connection to the value of the cards, but the rest of the cards don't? Why is the suit clearly visible in some drawings, but nonexistent in others? It would need to either be completely random or completely coherent. 1/2 way just looks kind of weird.
And I'm sorry, but that back design is just lazy.
Im looking at the Ultimate deck. I fail to see your point. Are you saying that the art on the Ultimate deck is 'playable' with artwork that 'belongs', whereas this deck isnt? Hahahaha, mate. Come on buddy.
With regards to only the 2s, 3s and 4s having a connection with the number of figures/faces on the cards. I don't see why that's a problem. Would you rather see the 4s have 2 faces and the 2s have 3 faces etc? Do you, without alcohol or other drugs in your system, reasonably think that the 10s should have fucking 10 figures/faces on them?
"It would need to either be completely random or completely coherent". What kind of alpha professor are you to be able to make such rash and ignorant statements? By your logic, a suicide king in a regular deck would be out of place thus making the deck "meh" (your words).
Appreciate the deck for what it is. A purely artistic deck. Don't judge something with norms and guidelines of something else. As ridiculous as it sounds, not all playing cards are/have to be playable.
The back design is just a repeating pattern of her logo. I don't like it either, but if that's what you're basing your argument on and ultimately calling the deck 'meh', you're funny. There are dozens of decks on the market, popular ones, that incorporate the same 'laziness'. There are also dozens of decks that use 'lazy' standard faces/'lazy recoloured faces. I'm going to assume (safely i hope) that you've bought decks with those elements above before.
I hate when people like you nitpick at the tiny things and fail to see/acknowledge the gloriousness right in front of you. Name any deck, i will be able to nitpick shit the same way you are. Stop hating, appreciate it for what it is.
-
Even if it was only about 10 or 12 dollars, this deck is a resounding "meh".
Just seems like a bunch of art was splattered onto a card template without rhyme or reason. The indices overlap the art on some, and don't on others. Some cards have the same amount of figures as their value, others don't. Even the theme of the suits lacks consistency.
The back is a lazy 1-way, the printer isn't specified, and the price tag is ludicrous.
I find it hilarious that you're judging an obviously artistic centred deck with the norms of a regular deck of playing cards. That's ridiculous. I take offence personally when people like you blatantly state that it "just seems like a bunch of art was splattered onto a card template without rhyme or reason", especially when it is very obvious (at least to a graphite illustrator like myself) how much time and effort was put into the expression, proportion and intricacy of every single illustration. You have absolutely no idea.
Sure, a community like us playing card fanatics would love to see creators that are knowledgable with our niche hobby. A 2 way back would be nice (and easily achievable with the current design). Refinements with the indices would be preferable (also easily achievable), and the lack of printer disclosure simply demonstrates that the creator does not know the importance of USPCC printing. Her project is entirely artistic based.
The price tag is definitely up there for a product with such an elastic demand. But that's about the only point i agree with you on.
Good comments Fred. By the way did you pledge for the deck?
-
Good comments Fred. By the way did you pledge for the deck?
With the $300 you saved from Dale's project you should back 4 decks! haha
-
Good comments Fred. By the way did you pledge for the deck?
I starred the project for now. Most likely will not end up seeing this one to the end though. The price tag, though may be justifiable when you take into account how many hours such a project would've taken, is still nonetheless quite ridiculous. But yeah, at a normal deck price (~$10) i would've jumped for 2 decks. Would've considered at 20-30$.. But 70$?, way out of my budget that's for sure. It should be noted though that at $70, you do also get the nice anodized matte metal card case with a sweet touch of minimalism.
I have a feeling the pricing model for this one's probably not going to make it. Best of luck to Connie.
-
Unless I completely missed it earlier, there is a $50.00 tier for one deck now, but you don't get the custom box. I still have to say the illustration show some amazing talent and I have to agree with Fred, you need to appreciate this for what it is, but even at $50 I think it's going to be out of the "Consideration" pool for a lot of collectors.
Hopefully she draws some Art collectors to her campaign, that may help the projects funding.
Good Luck!
-
Art decks should still function as good playing cards decks. Look at the Stranger&Stranger Ultimate deck. The Curator deck. The Clipped Wings deck. I'm not saying the art isn't good, I'm saying it doesn't belong on a deck.
An art portfolio would be a much better option. It kind of seems like she just up one day and said "Well, I have all this art. I guess I'll just put it on a card deck".
Even from an art-centered standpoint, consistency is still an issue. Why does all the art on the 4s, 2s, and 3s have a connection to the value of the cards, but the rest of the cards don't? Why is the suit clearly visible in some drawings, but nonexistent in others? It would need to either be completely random or completely coherent. 1/2 way just looks kind of weird.
And I'm sorry, but that back design is just lazy.
Im looking at the Ultimate deck. I fail to see your point. Are you saying that the art on the Ultimate deck is 'playable' with artwork that 'belongs', whereas this deck isnt? Hahahaha, mate. Come on buddy.
With regards to only the 2s, 3s and 4s having a connection with the number of figures/faces on the cards. I don't see why that's a problem. Would you rather see the 4s have 2 faces and the 2s have 3 faces etc? Do you, without alcohol or other drugs in your system, reasonably think that the 10s should have fucking 10 figures/faces on them?
"It would need to either be completely random or completely coherent". What kind of alpha professor are you to be able to make such rash and ignorant statements? By your logic, a suicide king in a regular deck would be out of place thus making the deck "meh" (your words).
Appreciate the deck for what it is. A purely artistic deck. Don't judge something with norms and guidelines of something else. As ridiculous as it sounds, not all playing cards are/have to be playable.
The back design is just a repeating pattern of her logo. I don't like it either, but if that's what you're basing your argument on and ultimately calling the deck 'meh', you're funny. There are dozens of decks on the market, popular ones, that incorporate the same 'laziness'. There are also dozens of decks that use 'lazy' standard faces/'lazy recoloured faces. I'm going to assume (safely i hope) that you've bought decks with those elements above before.
I hate when people like you nitpick at the tiny things and fail to see/acknowledge the gloriousness right in front of you. Name any deck, i will be able to nitpick shit the same way you are. Stop hating, appreciate it for what it is.
The Ultimate deck is completely random. No card is even close to another, but the theme of playing cards is planned into every picture. The complete randomness makes the deck the very definition of an art deck. Many of the pictures in this deck are just simply styles of fashion. If I saw them in of themselves, I wouldn't even begin to think they were related to cards.
Having 10 or 6 figures on the cards would definitely make it cluttered. That being said, why did the artist even choose to do the 1, 2, or 3 figures in the first place? Even in the higher number cards, the number could have been planned into the design. For example, a necklace with 8 spades, or possibly a hat with 10 hearts, or a dress that formed 7 clubs. The possibilities are endless, but the only associations I see with the values are just whole figures.
No. A suicide king would be out of place in a normal deck if it was the only 1-way card in the deck. The same way a deck would look weird if only 1/2 the cards had pips on them. The style is coherent, but formatting isn't. That's the biggest problem. I see an attempted transformation deck in some cards, a card related art deck in others, and just a plain art deck in the rest. There's no attempt at taking the theme of cards and adapting it into a full deck.
Who said they weren't playable? Hell, this deck is more playable than the Stranger and Stranger deck. And what logic is "appreciate it as an art deck"? If i just take art and put it on a card template, that doesn't make it a good deck. I could be the best artist in the world and still make a sub-par deck because I'm not consistent in my layout, formatting, or theme.
Very few decks on the market have a back design as lazy as this. Those that do have the back design for a reason, usually to be discrete, direct, or simple (e.g. NOC deck). This back doesn't mesh AT ALL with the theme. It's just a repetition of a very simple logo.
Yes, I own numerous "meh" decks. I own dozens. You know why? They weren't 70 bucks. Jesus, I could buy 2 bricks of Bee Acorn Backs on Thursday for that. If you're going to smack on a price tag that hefty, your deck needs to be 110% there.
The artwork's good, and the theme is interesting, but it doesn't work as a card deck. It tries to be one thing, switches to another, and then goes back again. It isn't "Nitpicking". These are glaring issues that I noticed right away.
All in all, IN MY OPINION, this is a mediocre deck at best.
-
Nosejam...I sold a deck last week to someone in Switzerland and the shipping there was just over $12, if you count the $1.75 for the padded envelope , it is very close to $15. I agree that if you are in Canada $15 is indeed steep but to Europe and Asia $15 is close to the norm
There's a missing detail, though. That $15 is IN ADDITION to the portion of the reward cost that was allocated for US shipping. It brings the total collected for shipping a few bucks higher. But unfortunately, from what practically the entire rest of the world says around here, it's more the norm than the exception to pay high shipping costs - AND Customs duty as well.
I've been following Connie's work for years (she's worked on this deck off and on), and she's extremely talented. Connie has a huge following online as well.
When I asked her on Instagram if she's going to be printing with USPCC, she replied that she's looking to print with admagic or cartamundi.
Her art is very good, there's no denying that. But the way it's presented could use a little help. The King of Clubs is missing a suit on one of the indices and the "Q" for the Queens' indices are from a different typeface and don't match, not the least reason being that they're shorter and blockier. Even if the "Q" of that main typeface doesn't have a "traditional" index style, make it match or make the rest match it. Also, while it's not mandatory to make the art not overlap into the indices, it does look much nicer if it avoids them.
I would hope for at least Cartamundi on this. While their card quality can be suspect at times, their ability to reproduce an image with good clarity and sharpness is not bad at all. The Star Wars, Indiana Jones and James Bond 007 franchises have used them in the recent past for creating movie-themed decks with photographic images and they've done nicely with them.
MrMollusk and Fred: you guys are both coming at this deck from very different perspectives and you won't see eye to eye on this. This deck is reasonably functional, but it's clearly not meant as a standard deck of cards - it's more about the art, period. It can't really be judged by the same criteria as, for example, the latest Artifice or Monarchs deck. Those decks and many others like them are about creating a certain style and applying it to a very functional deck, intended for use by card professionals. Only the rare card professional would consider Decked Out as a deck they'd use for any purpose - magic, cardistry, gambling, card housebuilding, etc. - other than to appreciate the art. It's not even comparable to a deck like any of the Federal 52 decks or an Uusi deck - they're artful, but they also have a certain design style that an art deck such as this doesn't have. They have an aesthetic that's meant to be both beautiful and highly functional, while Decked Out is meant as an art showcase above all else.
That price tag of $50 in a paper tuck, $70 with the metal box is all about the art and nothing else. We all know damn well that this deck could be made by USPC for in the ballpark of one-twentieth of what she's asking for it, but that's thinking solely in terms of the cost to manufacture, not the work and creativity that goes into the art. I could make a painting, use the same, exact canvas, brushes and paints as Picasso right down to the colors - that's not going to make it worth anything near what a Picasso is worth, not in the least due to how terrible an artist I am. We don't judge artwork by the price of the materials used to make it - if we did, most of the best paintings by the finest artists in the world that presently fetch six or seven figures at auction wouldn't cost more than a hundred bucks; many would be quite a good deal less.
Yes, the back could have been made more attractive and functional - but in its present state, putting aside that it shares a common affliction that many decks have known as a one-way design, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a simple, repeating design such as this - many classic card designs look VERY similar to this. I would suggest that she invert the symbols on the bottom half to eliminate the one-way design, but it's far from mandatory - again, this deck is about the art on the faces, not about an improved level of functionality. Could she have created a gorgeous clothing-design oriented piece of art to serve as the back design? Sure, it would have been an option. But using what appears to be a logo (or at least something very logo-like) is just another choice she made - it's not right, it's not wrong; it's what she wanted, plain as that.
-
I really love the art on these. But oh dear, the price. I can't say I can fully understand the amount of effort that went into producing the art for each card, as I am not an artist myself, and I suppose the value is really objective, but it might benefit the creator if she lowered the prices. I'm sure a lot of people would love to own these, but the price may be too much for most.
-
I really love the art on these. But oh dear, the price. I can't say I can fully understand the amount of effort that went into producing the art for each card, as I am not an artist myself, and I suppose the value is really objective, but it might benefit the creator if she lowered the prices. I'm sure a lot of people would love to own these, but the price may be too much for most.
I think you mean "subjective" rather than "objective" - meaning it's up to one's tastes and preferences as opposed to being something that can be measured and quantified by a standard of some kind.
Welcome to the boards, Sher! You should head over to the "Introduce Yourself" board and create a new topic for yourself - let the gang get to know a little more about you. We're a pretty friendly bunch and we don't (usually) bite... :))
-
Agree with Fred that the artist displays a huge amount of talent. No doubt each illustration reflects the time, and the skill involved.
But if you're going to put your art onto playing cards, especially if you're planning a monster price point, then you should spend just a bit of that precious time learning something more about playing cards. (whether you learn it yourself, or ask someone for help, or respond to potential backers ... doesn't matter.) As you point out, Fred, just some careful refinement of the indices could make these more playable. Absolutely. But the way it is now ... especially at this price ...
Agree with MrMollusk that there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason in this deck. It's not that every deck *has* rhyme and reason, but at this price you kind of expect a bit more. And frankly, it wouldn't take that much. Decide whether this is gonna be a transformation deck, a playable deck, or just a bunch of art. If it's not transformation, then size and position the illustrations to not hide the indices. Make the indices smaller if that helps. Divvy up the illustrations by type and group them into suits. Select a common feature for each court. There are so many minor tweaks that could be done to improve the appeal of this deck--without sacrificing the art, or diminishing the incredible talent that she brings to the project.
The card back tells a very different story than her art. OK, I get it that it's her logo repeated, but one side of the card says Extreme and Edgy while the other side says Imprecise Brooks Brothers. Heck use the tuck box artwork, with the signature. The signature alone tells her story a 100 times better than that card back. (And honestly ... would it hurt so much to draw a ganglet of fashion-forward men to play the part of kings? :-)
I was ready to pledge for this deck as soon as I saw the title and the cover shot. That's how much I wanted to back this project. But for me at least, the playability is the big showstopper. Which is so frustrating because the playability would be so easy to fix. The price? Yeah OK, that would've been a problem too. But I might've gotten over that.
Her art is *perfect* for this medium. But the final steps of turning art into playing cards ... just not there. (At least not yet. :-)
Just my 2 cents
-
MrMollusk and Fred: you guys are both coming at this deck from very different perspectives and you won't see eye to eye on this. This deck is reasonably functional, but it's clearly not meant as a standard deck of cards - it's more about the art, period. It can't really be judged by the same criteria as, for example, the latest Artifice or Monarchs deck. Those decks and many others like them are about creating a certain style and applying it to a very functional deck, intended for use by card professionals. Only the rare card professional would consider Decked Out as a deck they'd use for any purpose - magic, cardistry, gambling, card housebuilding, etc. - other than to appreciate the art. It's not even comparable to a deck like any of the Federal 52 decks or an Uusi deck - they're artful, but they also have a certain design style that an art deck such as this doesn't have. They have an aesthetic that's meant to be both beautiful and highly functional, while Decked Out is meant as an art showcase above all else.
That price tag of $50 in a paper tuck, $70 with the metal box is all about the art and nothing else. We all know damn well that this deck could be made by USPC for in the ballpark of one-twentieth of what she's asking for it, but that's thinking solely in terms of the cost to manufacture, not the work and creativity that goes into the art. I could make a painting, use the same, exact canvas, brushes and paints as Picasso right down to the colors - that's not going to make it worth anything near what a Picasso is worth, not in the least due to how terrible an artist I am. We don't judge artwork by the price of the materials used to make it - if we did, most of the best paintings by the finest artists in the world that presently fetch six or seven figures at auction wouldn't cost more than a hundred bucks; many would be quite a good deal less.
I'm judging it as a card deck. Yes, it's in a completely different world from a standard playing deck, but the laws of design still apply to it. A playing card deck is a unit, and for a unit to be cohesive and comprehensive, the elements have to match.The deck would be infinitely better if the card's value was incorporated into every value card, or if it just wasn't addressed at all. It would also work for the deck to have a specific style of fashion for the suits. Victorian, gothic, modern, kitsch, etc. for each suit. There doesn't seem to be a set theme at all in this deck. I think that when an artist adopts a medium, they should use the identity of that medium to enhance their art. I don't see that in this deck. I only see the deck as a vehicle for the artist to get her work out.
The problem with that logic is that I'm not paying for the art. I'm paying for a print of the art. If each card was hand-drawn, would the deck be worth $70? Hell yeah. It'd be worth more. But I'm only paying for the art that's been scanned and printed. If that applied to the classicals, I would have to pay 6 or 7 figures for a poster of "Starry night". Jackson Robinson's decks (which probably took much more time and effort than this deck) don't even break $20. And they're absolutely stunning.
She actually has changed the back. But I actually think she made it worse. Now the top 5 lines of the logo are right-side-up, and the lower 4 lines are inverted.
-
She actually has changed the back. But I actually think she made it worse. Now the top 5 lines of the logo are right-side-up, and the lower 4 lines are inverted.
Maybe you should just refer her to me... :))
-
I had a chat with Connie and sent her a link to these forums...She probably won't sign up but she has seen most of the comments. She admits that she did not know about this hobby of ours, but she appreciates all the comments good or constructive
-
I had a chat with Connie and sent her a link to these forums...She probably won't sign up but she has seen most of the comments. She admits that she did not know about this hobby of ours, but she appreciates all the comments good or constructive
I meant to refer her to me, as in "I'm a consultant for playing card designers..."
-
Hey Don...I got what you meant...I wrote this reply in response to the previous post but while I was typing you posted your message.
-
Hey Don...I got what you meant...I wrote this reply in response to the previous post but while I was typing you posted your message.
It's all good! Forgive me, I've been awake for nearly 23 hours now. Nasty case of insomnia. My last sleep period was only five hours, to boot.
-
No worries my friend...At least here your comments are not taken personal in a banning way hehehehe
-
I really love the art on these. But oh dear, the price. I can't say I can fully understand the amount of effort that went into producing the art for each card, as I am not an artist myself, and I suppose the value is really objective, but it might benefit the creator if she lowered the prices. I'm sure a lot of people would love to own these, but the price may be too much for most.
I think you mean "subjective" rather than "objective" - meaning it's up to one's tastes and preferences as opposed to being something that can be measured and quantified by a standard of some kind.
Welcome to the boards, Sher! You should head over to the "Introduce Yourself" board and create a new topic for yourself - let the gang get to know a little more about you. We're a pretty friendly bunch and we don't (usually) bite... :))
Oh yes, I meant "subjective." Haha. Thanks for the welcome, I'll post one shortly :)
-
No worries my friend...At least here your comments are not taken personal in a banning way hehehehe
I'd like to think that my skin isn't Scott-toilet-paper thin... You can almost read through that stuff!
-
So Connie has made the following update and basically lowered the price of the deck by $20 meaning for $50 you now get the special box and the deck
I wanted to thank all my early backers and commenters for their support and insight. It's been a whirlwind start to the project, and I've learned a lot in these first days.
I've received a lot of comments on the price level for the deck, and I wanted to take a moment to explain my thinking behind it. I know a lot of you in the card collector community have balked at the original price level of $70 for the deck with metal case, and that's completely understandable coming from your world. In my world, it is not uncommon to have an art series collection sell at this price point, whether it be a run of prints or an art book, and often times they go for much higher. My original intention was to sell it as an art piece, and so I chose accordingly based on what I know of the art world's prices.
The fact is, I'm not a business woman. I don't know the first thing about studying market value and evaluating elastic demand (terms I'm pulling from your helpful comments!). When I did an initial run of 14 cards years ago as an utterly cliche starving art student, I sold a limited quantity at $60 a pack. That's why I thought the $70 price point was more than fair for the full deck -- it was a special Kickstarter deal. Illustration is all I do. This isn't something I can do in my spare time between jobs; it is my job. My art demands that I draw and draw and draw for hours a day, that I constantly hone and improve and re-examine my technique. This isn't supposed to be just another deck of playing cards. This is my art. It is, quite literally, my life's work. And my only hope is that it can move or inspire you in at least some small way, the way I was moved and inspired to begin in the first place.
With that said, the whole point of putting my art into card form was so that it would pull away from the habits of "high art," where work is only viewed from a distance, through a glass case hung on a wall. This was supposed to bring art back down to Earth, to be more accessible. Not low-brow, but intimate. This was meant to be something you can hold in your hand, to be as personal for those viewing it as it was for me to create it. And if the cost prices out people who would otherwise want to interact with the art, then it defeats the purpose of the project altogether.
That is why, after careful thought, consideration, negotiations with vendors, and a couple sleepless nights, I have decided to revise the reward levels. All my current backers who have contributed at the $50 level and above will automatically get the additional rewards at their respective price levels, plus as a special thank you for your early support -- for taking the leap with me -- I will also send you a new limited-edition signed print, exclusive to you early Kickstarter backers. It is a personal token of my gratitude, and no one else in the world will have it but you.
It has meant so much to me that all of you have joined me on this journey. I'm still figuring it out, and I'm realizing that outside of the four corners of these pages where I spill my ink and guts, I have much to learn. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or comments. Thank you for your guidance, your kindness, and your support.
Thank you.
-
And a new back design
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/001/387/719/66b14eb79868884e3b0a1be535ecb80f_large.jpg?1385610771)
-
Much, MUCH better back.
Although it's still a 1-way, it looks infinitely better than the previous back. The price drop is a plus too.
The only concern I would have would be the thin borders. They look fantastic on a screen, but the slightest printing deviation could end up ruining the back. A slight border increase could make sure that doesn't happen.
This is shaping up to be a very solid deck.
-
Updated the pick to the 2 way design
-
Oh, sweet. All the better, then.
-
That's a vast improvement to say the least and redoing the pricing structure, as mentioned, is also a big plus. Most of all it great when designers are actually listening to what's being said about there projects.........unlike those who just put their heads down and bull forward oblivious to the chatter around them.
So kudos to Connie and I wish her luck!
-
That's a vast improvement to say the least and redoing the pricing structure, as mentioned, is also a big plus. Most of all it great when designers are actually listening to what's being said about there projects.........unlike those who just put their heads down and bull forward oblivious to the chatter around them.
So kudos to Connie and I wish her luck!
All too many creators of projects are so narrowly focused on their "artistic vision" that they completely neglect the calls of their potential backers to make improvements. In other words, they're much more of an artist than a businessperson. A proper balance of two is needed for even the best artists to succeed commercially, at least during their own lifetime.
I do like the new back better. It's got nothing to do with fashion, but it's elegant and sleek.
-
Update to tuck box was just posted
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/001/431/539/9c132f01d0be2e749a0653cddbee69ea_large.gif?1386731541)
-
Very elegant, it works well with the card designs.
-
Pretty lively discussion in the Connie's Kickstarter comment section. She is taking peoples advice and improving her cards. Going with the USPCC, making a "2-way" back and such but I do have one fear. My fear is she will just make her Kickstarter goal of $10,000 This is not enough for a 2,500 deck run. I noticed she is trying to please everyone and as a result her rewards look scattered and not complete. New potential backers might frown on this. People have expressed great interest in her cards and she can always come back fresh and complete.
I've read the comments above and this is art, but the cards need to be functional also. So since this is an art deck we are not going to have any big old fat ugly suits on the cards, instead we need to concentrate on the indexes to make them readable. I actually think hers need to be slightly smaller with a different font and move them more into the corners. That would in turn give her more room for her art. The indexes themselves need a small white boarder if it so happens to be inside her art. In some of her cards, currenly the indexes are hard to read.
-
The borders on those backs doesn't look like they will be USPCC approved. Hopefully they'll stay as thin as possible.
I have a recurring nightmare where I'm opening a deck that's supposed to have thin borders, and when I take them out of the box they have the thickest borders ever! (it actually happened once, and I've been traumatized ever since)
-
The borders on those backs doesn't look like they will be USPCC approved. Hopefully they'll stay as thin as possible.
I have a recurring nightmare where I'm opening a deck that's supposed to have thin borders, and when I take them out of the box they have the thickest borders ever! (it actually happened once, and I've been traumatized ever since)
Maybe I should bust out some old-school decks on you. They don't have borders - they have white-wall tires! HUGE!
I've already spotted two of the most minimal decks anywhere. One was a European plastic deck with all-white backs. The other was a Chinese-made deck that had a cardboard look to the faces and backs - all it had were indices, NOTHING else. No back pattern, no pips, no court characters, not even a harlequin joker to be seen anywhere.
-
Pretty lively discussion in the Connie's Kickstarter comment section. She is taking peoples advice and improving her cards. Going with the USPCC, making a "2-way" back and such but I do have one fear. My fear is she will just make her Kickstarter goal of $10,000 This is not enough for a 2,500 deck run. I noticed she is trying to please everyone and as a result her rewards look scattered and not complete. New potential backers might frown on this. People have expressed great interest in her cards and she can always come back fresh and complete.
I've read the comments above and this is art, but the cards need to be functional also. So since this is an art deck we are not going to have any big old fat ugly suits on the cards, instead we need to concentrate on the indexes to make them readable. I actually think hers need to be slightly smaller with a different font and move them more into the corners. That would in turn give her more room for her art. The indexes themselves need a small white boarder if it so happens to be inside her art. In some of her cards, currenly the indexes are hard to read.
I really hope she makes a good amount above her goal. She also has extras like bags and such that she will have to produce. Maybe she has extra funds somewhere to help with these?
I asked her in the comment section specifically about the fonts of the indexes, but I agree that it should be smaller.
-
I hope Connie meets her goal and exceeds it and I also hope it all works out for the project. But more than anything I hope that IF Connie doesn't get funded this time around she doesn't abandon this deck. I think it's a great artistic deck and with some tweaking can be very successful.
Good Luck on the Home Stretch Connie!!