You are Here:

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - AdamF

Pages: [1]
1
Design & Development / Re: DDDC: INTERFERENCE deck
« on: April 20, 2015, 10:29:11 PM »
Mark, Good luck with the relaunch of Interference.  Take a look at the Glitch deck; she did something similar to what I believe you're going for:

http://www.amazon.com/GLITCH-Playing-Cards/dp/B00OSGQNX0

2
AdamF - When you say "There is a method to my madness"  you are speaking my language.  Your deck is obviously an art deck.  What that means is all your courts and pips are going to be "1-way" and you have done your research into knowing your back of card should be a mirror image or "2-way"  I respect you more and my hat is off to you.  You have not broken any rules, but have really bent the crap of of them.  Yes, your back of card looks like a spider made it on LSD, but hey that's my opinion. But I also know it goes with your theme.  Stick to your guns.  I think you have something different and special.  Your deck is a very unique deck and love seeing decks like this.  They are far and few between.

Sprouts, Don, Alvinhy -- thanks for all your thoughts on the back.  They're well taken.  But I do stand by the choice we're making here.  I think that as collectors we're all used to seeing backs as the place where the deck designer shows off how fine his hand can be, how ornate a pattern he can render -- it's the only place where the designer gets to work on a truly blank canvas.  But in our deck, every card is a novelty -- every card is a visual game or pun or trick.  So we did something different with the back -- no games. (Although I do appreciate Don's idea for the "back of head" back.)  I also happen to think our back is beautiful.  Anyway, I'm glad that it's making controversy.  This is an art form we all care about.  I don't think I would've done my job at advancing the art form if I hadn't stirred up a little trouble.

3
I for one like to see something different.  Can we see a close up of your back of card?

Here's the back.  I'd love to hear folks' comments and suggestions.

For a deck called Fine Line, your back looks more like Doodler Gone Crazy. Is there actually a reason behind this back? i mean...my wife can draw such a back...especially when i make her mad... 

There is a method to my madness! 

Because there is so much imagery on the fronts of the cards, we wanted a back that was not an image or a pattern, so that the back would contrast dramatically with the fronts.  We also wanted something that was built out of line, not solid color fields.  Everything in the deck is built out of line consisting of the same weight -- that's the fine line running through FINE LINE -- and we didn't want to break that rule on the back.

We ended up with a back that was simple, dark and raw.  We then played around with it a bit so that it would be a symetrical two-way back, so it could make a cool fan, even after the cards have been shuffled.  It's edgy, no doubt about it.  But so is the rest of the deck. 

4
I for one like to see something different.  Can we see a close up of your back of card?

Here's the back.  I'd love to hear folks' comments and suggestions.

5
Just a question, so if the deck is held with one hand when playing a card game or something won't the top card hide the bottom cards artwork and you will need to separate each card in order to figure out what they are?

Its good for a two card game but what if a game that consists of multiple cards?!

When playing a card game, you may have to fan out our cards bit wider than you're used to, in order to see the art.  We found in tests that our cards worked well with games that have 5- or 7-card hands, like poker or gin.  We didn't test on bridge players, but one person we spoke to said that she thinks it could be cumbersome to play bridge with the cards. 

And then there are the games that are very much enhanced with these cards -- speed games like spit, and party games like crazy eights are a real trip.  One guy even told us that he thought his kids would like using our cards for drinking games.  What a dad!

6
Don,  Thanks for the kind words about the deck.  I really appreciate your support on the discourse.

I've been answering lots of folks' questions about our funding goal.  It's low because we're prepared to spend our own money on the deck (and have already given USPCC a substantial amount of money).  I encourage folks to google me (Adam Farbiarz, New Haven, CT) and my partner (Adam Douglas Thompson, Brooklyn, NY).  We're real people and I hope that we communicated through our KS presentation that we're attentive, straightforward and, above all, trustworthy.

About the art:  Yes, it's totally wild!  I think collectors and card players will find it very fun, if you've got a taste for the heterodox and the new.  My partner (Adam T.) is an amazing illustrator, with a great, cool, crisp style.  There are other amazing designers who illustrate every card (Emmanuel Jose)  -- we're a little different because not only is every card unique but each one is its own visual puzzle.  Each card expresses its number in a totally new and surprising way.

One thing: Just to clarify: one of the suits is all words -- no pictures, no pips -- just words.  Little puns, kinda of.  Those aren't exactly illustrations...they're more like...games.

I sincerely hope that folks support our deck!  If you're open to trying something different, I think you'll find it really cool.

7
Points for taking a different approach.
However, you said "once you figure it out" which has kind of put me off. There will be people out there who may get frustrated trying to figure it out and toss the deck to one side. I know I would. There's thousands of decks out there to play card games and poker with. I know you said you've tested this with poker players, however I don't see this working in a poker game at all.
Also, I like my decks with a bit of colour, not a fan of black & white decks that much.

Personally, I won't be pledging, but I do wish you luck. I like to see people succeed at something they truly love.

Thanks, Nurul.  Yes, the deck has to be "solved" before it can be played with -- it's a puzzle, which, depending on the person, can take anywhere from 10 to 25 minutes to solve. (It's faster when groups solve it together).  Hopefully you and my deck will meet one day, and you'll get to try it out!

8
I can see that you are trying to be different just for the sake of being different which I can appreciate somewhat.  However, that one old expression comes to mind when I look at this project... " If it isn't broke, don't fix it." 

JMO....  I wish you all the luck with your endeavor.

For me, cards are a way to connect with other people -- by playing card games around a table, or by sharing my collection.  There are so many decks I love.  The ones that are most special to me are the ones that when I show them to people, they start a conversation. 

With this deck, we wanted to make something that started a new kind of conversation -- a conversation that was playful and mentally engaging.  In testing the deck, I found that the people who were really into it were folks who tested it in groups of 2 or 3 -- I think that's because it became a way for people to share an experience and to connect as friends.  Above all, that's what we're going for here.  I sincerely hope you'll back us and find out what I mean!

9
Usually I love the non-traditional but the pictures just seem so random I imagine this would be a nightmare to try to play with, so essentially what is left is 56 cards with pictures on them. Maybe a guessing game at best. While the images are quirky and fun the back of the card is probably the worst I have ever seen. The box is cool and I do like the style, I just wish there were some indies to turn it from picture cards into a playable deck.

Are the decks playable? Yes. Once you figure out how all the cards work, you can play any game you want with them, including poker. Poker players who we tested it on liked playing with our cards -- the feedback we got was that flushes in particular were easy to see with our cards, because the suits are graphically similar to one another -- so all you have to do is take a quick look to see whether all your cards are in the same style. Straights and pairs and threes of a kind, etc. are a little bit harder to see. So, yeah, it'll be more of a challenge to play with these cards than to play with an orthodox deck that has pips and indices. But our testing also showed that most folks thought that the challenge was really cool and added an interesting dimension to the game.

The backs: the backs are very straightforward: they're very dark and raw, like someone has taken an Etch-a-sketch and drawn all over it. Again, an unorthodox choice to go with our very unusual deck.  There was a tremendous amount of care and thought that went into making a ton of original art for this deck.  So the aim was to keep the backs simple, hip and non-distracting. 

Yes, it's a wild deck!  I sincerely hope you'll give it a chance and back us!

10
I've gotten some questions about our funding goal. 

The $4,200 we're trying to raise covers only about half of what USPCC is charging us. The rest is coming out of our own pockets. We really believe in this project, and we'd like to make it a reality, even if it means dipping into the piggy bank.  We've already given USPCC a chunk of money, which is why they've agreed to get the cards delivered to us in November (and in your hands before Christmas).

11
Quote
HOW DOES IT WORK? 

Each of the cards features an illustration or phrase that depicts the card's value and suit in a new and surprising way. For example: An octopus depicts one of the eights. A lion is one of the kings. The ten commandments is one of the tens.

For the suits, we've created four distinct families of illustrations or phrases. Each thirteen-card family has its own style and theme. Cards that go together in a family make up each suit. We've also created two very special and unusual jokers.

That's all we'll give away! The rest is for you to figure out!

This is a pretty interesting idea. So we have a random object suit, word suit, animal suit, and what looks like a cookie cutter suit. That's what I see. Looking forward to seeing more.

The feedback we got in testing was that the suits are a lot of fun to figure out.  So I'm not sure whether I should give away all of the suits here (should I spoil the puzzle?) but I will say that you're right about the word suit, and you're onto something when you note that there's an object suit. 

Here's an alternative mockup that we did that reveals four additional cards and gives some more clues about the suits.

12
Some pics.  Please let me know if you all want to see more...


13
Playing Card Plethora / FINE LINE: Playing Cards in Pictures & Words (KS)
« on: October 04, 2014, 08:40:14 PM »
We just launched on kickstarter a very special and unusual deck.  I'd love to hear what folks think, and of course I'd welcome your support...

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2057423380/fine-line-playing-cards-in-pictures-and-words?ref=card

14
Design & Development / Re: USPCC Die Line versus Dotted Line
« on: September 14, 2014, 03:12:33 PM »
There you go.  It's basically half way to the cut border.  I was told to modify the spades.  They are at the absolute edge of no mans land.  My fat club extends well into the left side edge.  I had to make it to where all the ranks were in the same spot in all the cards.  I tried to stay close to the old suits of the Bicycle 808 series.  In the future, I wish to make custom suits that are slightly bubbled in shape.  In doing so, I might be able to move the indices a little farther toward the cut border and in theory a person could have 1 or 2 more cards in their hand.

Thanks for sharing this -- this is super helpful.  I'll use this to help guide my layout. 

Nice design, too!

15
Design & Development / Re: USPCC Die Line versus Dotted Line
« on: September 14, 2014, 03:09:42 PM »
DON -- yes, I know your name!  95% of what I know about playing cards come from reading your posts on this forum!  Sorry about the misspelling. :)

Reason I'm not concerned about the backs (mine is two-way) is that I don't have any borders.  The design looks kind of like white noise on an old television screen. 

The cards are so unusual and heterodox anyway that only a folks who want a very different poker playing experience will use them.  I'll share the designs on the forum in about a week...

16
Design & Development / Re: USPCC Die Line versus Dotted Line
« on: September 13, 2014, 05:17:46 PM »
That should give you an Idea.  Just know that the back of card is centered while the front of card takes the shift hit....

Thanks, Sprouts (and Dan).  Sprouts, do you have an example, perhaps from your own designs, that shows how far outside of the dotted line you're comfortable going?  Your profile pic, for example, shows an index that goes outside the line.  I am interested in seeing how far out you'd be willing to go on the front of the card.  (Backs don't concern me as much, as I'm not even doing a border on my backs.)  Any help would be super appreciated...

17
Design & Development / USPCC Die Line versus Dotted Line
« on: September 13, 2014, 08:43:08 AM »
Does anyone have experience using USPCC die line templates?  I have submitted art that extends right up to the dotted lines on their templates (i.e., past the safe zone), but that is within the (solid) die line.  Do folks know how important it is to keep image within the safe zone?  Seems like a very large safe zone to me.

18
Design & Development / Re: Paper -- Bicycle or Bee?
« on: August 26, 2014, 10:28:39 PM »
Thanks Don and Marcus.  I guess what I'll go for then is a smooth deck (no dimpling) with a Magic Finish. 

Don -- I wasn't aware that so many decks were still being made smooth.  That makes me feel like I'm in good company for going with the smooth finish. (Although all of those decks kind of have a retro or old timey feeling.  I dig the Streamlines and the Steamboat reprints, but, like the Aviators, those feel like they are from a different era -- it'll be cool to see how my strange and newfangled cards work with the smooth finish.)

19
Design & Development / Re: Paper -- Bicycle or Bee?
« on: August 24, 2014, 07:57:52 PM »
@AdamF - Usually, you have to go with Bike stock unless demand justifies 5,000 decks of Bee stock.  What you should be considering right now is the finish.  Are you going with Embossed or Smooth.

I'm thinking smooth finish -- the illustrations on my deck are slick and kinda non-frilly.  I want the finish to be as clean as possible -- no dimpling.  Seems like a pretty minority position these days, though.  The only deck I know of that has a smooth finish is Aviators.  Everyone seems to go with magic/air cushion these days.  I guess that gives the cards a silkier feeling for handling/cardistry, but I can't help but feeling that the dimpling on the cards hurts the artwork.

20
Design & Development / Paper -- Bicycle or Bee?
« on: August 23, 2014, 06:58:02 PM »
I'm working on a deck that I want to feel luxurious and artistic.  I was planning on going with Bee paper, but USPCC is telling me that I'd have to do a print run of 5,000+ to get the Bee paper.  I'm keeping my fingers crossed, but not sure that my kickstarter campaign (when it launches...) will raise enough to justify such a big run... I can think of some super classy decks that are printed on Bicycle (Federal 52, Monarchs maybe too?).  Is it ok to do a classy deck on Bicycle paper? Or is that a turn off?

21
A Cellar of Fine Vintages / Re: 1881 Sportsman's #202
« on: January 08, 2014, 10:31:17 PM »
What a lovely court card.  But such a small index.  I feel like you sacrifice some playability with all of that graphic oomph.

22
Deck Reviews! / Re: [VID] new Virtuoso Deck - Spring/Summer 2014 edition
« on: January 08, 2014, 10:25:56 PM »
Great looking deck, and good review.  Liked your stop motion jokes.  This deck is a must-have for any magician, or Mets fan. 

Pages: [1]