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 - CardConjurer

Pages: [1]
1
A Cellar of Fine Vintages / Re: Antique Playing Card Price Lists
« on: November 21, 2014, 08:40:53 AM »
Wow - very cool.  Some of those decks appear to be rather expensive - for the lists with actual prices, is that by the dozen or by some other amount?

Indeed, some of the decks seemed rather expensive but I think that some of the prices have to correspond to the dozen or more.
Can you give me the complete word which corresponds to the abbreviation "gross." at the top of the prices please ? I don't understand in english the exact sense of the expression "per gross."

"Gross" means 144, 12 dozen.

2
Silly me - showing you stuff on your own site!


As far as #3, I had assumed it was made in the same years as the National Card Co. existed, towards the end of the 1800's. My one question is whether the name National Card Co. was used by the USPC for many years later with the Duplicate Whist brand. We know, obviously, that National Card Co. was used for over a century after the USPC merged just based on the Aladdin Brands. Just want to be sure this box is a pre-USPC National Card Co. piece.

It's not likely that this National Card Co. that created the wooden brick box is the same company that made the Aladdin brand.  There was a recent reprinting of an Aladdin back, the Dome back, that dated back to the beginning of the Aladdin brand - 1880.  This predates the existence of the National Card Co. that made your box by a few years.

I was referring to the fact that the Aladdin Brand decks produced by the USPC were made with the "National Card Co." name still on the boxes and cards. See below.

3
I would think the Steamboat deck is from the 1929 period. The box is around 1890-1896 period.

Thank you Tom. How common are these two items? Any thoughts on the Aristocrat deck?

4
The first one may be easily explained.  Russell Card Co. in Milltown, NY operated only from 1912-1928, being acquired by USPC in '29.  Much as with the modern Bee and Tally Ho decks, the Russell name was kept in use for many years later.

https://sites.google.com/site/cardconjurer/article/dating/manufacturers#RPC

It doesn't explain the lack of an Ace of Spades code, but not all USPC decks have the codes.  Modern Congress decks usually have pre-printed faces done in bulk, then the faces are run off usually at another time, so because the printing of the face and back can occur in different years, USPC doesn't encode the Aces of Spades on them.

On the 999 Steamboats, the L code isn't just '08 or '29.  It could also be '49, '69, '89 or 2009.  2009 is rather unlikely, but the brand was regularly manufactured into the early 2000s, with at least two reprintings since then, both easily distinguished from the original models.  The best cues to the deck's age you might have there is the Joker as well as the colors and pattern of the back.  I could be wrong, but that Steamboat joker was not the first joker type the brand used.  They've had a number of different designs, including a few that weren't very politically-correct these days.

The last one can be easily explained.  Looking at the same manufacturer list I used for the first deck, I can see that the National Card Co. had offices in both Indianapolis and New York, but it remained independent for only a very short time, from 1886 to 1894, after which time they were merged into USPC.  That box likely was made in that time span.

Thanks Don. That website you linked is actually my website lol.

In reference to #1, the Ace of Spades is coded with the same type of 5 digit code as many of my other pre-USPC Russell decks. This is why the rather late tax stamp confuses me. I would have pegged this deck for a couple decades earlier than the stamp implies. Obvliously there is a chance it got stuck in a warehouse somewhere for a while before being sold, but this is not a simple explanation. I was hoping someone could shed some light on what period the Back No. 8 was produced in? What period was the Russell 5 digit code used in? Did it continue to be used on certain decks for a decade or more after acquisition by the USPC?

In reference to #2, yes I know that the L code was used in many other dates. I have, however narrowed it down to 1908 or 1929 based on context clues. I assume it is 1929, but was hoping someone might be able to tell me more about this color back design and the dates it was in print.

As far as #3, I had assumed it was made in the same years as the National Card Co. existed, towards the end of the 1800's. My one question is whether the name National Card Co. was used by the USPC for many years later with the Duplicate Whist brand. We know, obviously, that National Card Co. was used for over a century after the USPC merged just based on the Aladdin Brands. Just want to be sure this box is a pre-USPC National Card Co. piece.

5
Hello everyone. I was hoping some of you could provide me with some information on a few items in my collection. I am actually looking to sell all of these items and I want to make sure I am able to provide accurate information with them. I don't currently have access to my copy of Hochman.

There are three items:

1. Aristocrat Back No. 8 - I tried selling this deck about a year ago on eBay, but the buyer backed out because I incorrectly named the date. The deck was produced by pre-USPC RPC, it does not include the USPC date code. I know the tax stamp is from the late 50's/early 60's, and is cancelled by the USPC. Can someone shed some light on this deck?




2. Steamboat Deck. There is no remaining tax stamp, though the L in the date code puts it at either 1908 or 1929. Obviously I would think 1929 right away, but the color of the back design and the fact that the faces appear to have stamped colors in lieu of printed colors, makes me think it could be earlier. Any thoughts?




3. National Playing Card Co. Box. My best guess would put this box in the late 1800's. Any thoughts? I bought this at an estate sale about a week ago.



Larger photos can be viewed at the below link:
https://sites.google.com/site/cardconjurer/questions

Thanks in advance for all the info, it is much appreciated.

6
I think I can shed some light on these decks. All of the information provided below is from memory, so I may have some numbers or details wrong. With that said, look at the attached two photos.

A bit of history:
In the late 1990's and early 2000's, casinos were asking USPC to produce a high quality Bee deck which had a generic logo in lieu of a Casino specific logo. Many different types of decks were made with generic logos on Bee decks. One common version is the decks with bumble bees on the back design. These decks were sold ONLY to Casinos. This practice ended in the mid 2000's, with the remaining sold in the USPC warehouse. In case anyone did not know - the USPC had a warehouse open for many years in Cincinnati which sold decks in bulk to local suppliers.

The Black "Tech Art" decks were produced in 2001 by USPC as test decks for casinos, with the USPC Cube Logo on the back. These decks had jumbo index tech art faces with a regular Bee box. Only 3000 of these decks were produced. Of this, many were destroyed during testing, with the remaining decks sold at the USPC Warehouse. A few locals used to buy and resell decks from the warehouse on eBay throughout the 2000's. A guy named Dave Hofmeister (ebay name pokerstud52) was lucky enough to get his hands on all of the remaining decks of these "Tech Art" Bee decks from the warehouse. He got a good deal on the decks, so he sold these locally in Cincinatti to poker tournaments and local buyers. Hundreds more were destroyed. Many years later he began selling them to a small group of magicians who fell in love with the back design. Personally, I had been waiting for years for the USPC to come out with the Bee back design with white borders. Aside from me, names I can remember of people who bought these decks were Bobby Hasbun, Lonnie Dilan, and possibly Lee Asher. I initially had around 100 decks.

The name "Tech Art Bee" was given by these early deck buyers because of the name "Jumbo Index Tech Art" on the back of the decks. Tech Art is a term that USPC uses for a particular type of face design, so the name "Tech Art Bee" is a bit of a misnomer.

Anyhow, a couple years I told Dave that I knew alot of people would be interested in buying these decks on eBay. At this point he had around 600 decks left. He sold all of his remaining decks on eBay, fairly inexpensively.

In 2005, the USPC produced ANOTHER test deck, with a VERY similar back design. It was a BLUE version of the back design but with Standard Index Bicycle faces, and actually still in a Bee box. I do not know how many of these decks were produced, definitely at least a few thousand. A Cincinnati local named Bill Merz (ebay name merz67) was the guy who was lucky enough to purchase all the decks from the warehouse. He sold all of his decks on eBay over a couple years. At one point I think I had around 4 dozen.

I only have a handful of each deck left. I sold off most of mine over the past 6-8 years. Below are photos distinguishing each deck.






I don't think any of this info has ever been written down, so thanks for the opportunity to put my memory to the test! Let me know if anyone has any comments or questions.

EDIT: fixed Dave's last name.

7
The Source - Card Collecting 101 / Re: History of Casino Decks
« on: November 17, 2014, 06:21:43 PM »
Hi,

The following link shows many interesting informations. Indeed, there are many types of golden nugget :
https://sites.google.com/site/cardconjurer/playingcards/vintagecasinoplayingcards/goldennugget

Good job from the author!

Best regards,

Bathcrew.


Sorry to bring up such an old post, but wanted to chime in. I created the website you linked many years ago. I had started compiling information on vintage casino decks here:

https://sites.google.com/site/cardconjurer/playingcards/vintagecasinoplayingcards

I honed in on the solid back designs with white borders. Many years ago that was my favorite type of deck to collect. I sold off my large collection of vintage casino decks in order to narrow the scope of my collection. Many of you may own some of my old decks.

For whatever reason, some of these vintage casino decks are mind-bogglingly rare.

Fred - not sure if you research extends to the other vintage casino decks, but the above link could be a good jumping off point for a detailed study.

8
I store every vintage deck I own in sealed plastic bags. There is a certain size you can buy that fits 4 decks perfectly. I lived in South Florida (very humid) for over 10 years with my collection and have never had a problem. Massive swings in temperature/humidity is the only time I think you'd have a problem.

9
A Cellar of Fine Vintages / Re: Incorrect Bicycle Oak Leaf Back Auction?
« on: January 21, 2014, 08:28:51 PM »
I've seen this situation before! Last year I purchased a deck off eBay with the same Bicycle oak leaf box pictured above. The auction did not display the AoS or jokers only the box and a stack of cards. Upon receiving the item I opened it to find cards with the correct back but with this same non bicycle ace and same joker as above. I immediately sent it back to the seller for a refund.  Wish I could still pull up the eBay transaction but it is long gone.

Maybe there is more of a possibility that these two decks were in-fact in the correct boxes. Does anyone here own a Bicycle Oak Leaf c. 1940's deck with a Bicycle ace of spades?

10
A Cellar of Fine Vintages / Re: Incorrect Bicycle Oak Leaf Back Auction?
« on: January 20, 2014, 07:21:28 PM »
Below is a link to a video showing the deck.

Let me know what ya'll think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6gPPJRBchY

11
A Cellar of Fine Vintages / Re: Incorrect Bicycle Oak Leaf Back Auction?
« on: January 20, 2014, 12:31:14 PM »
Card Conjurer… This is not a personal attack on you, but rather I am just trying to get to the bottom of this situation…

Sorry I was a bit quick to take offense.

Also, why would a box saying oak leaf back have a normal leaf back design? Card conjurer, if you don't mind making a short video displaying the front and back of the tuck, AoS and joker please?

I'll take a video when I get off work.

I bought this deck so long ago, I don't remember where I got it. One thing I do know, is that I didn't buy it from a collector or a magician. That makes me think that this deck might not be in a different box. That, coupled with the fact that the back design was named different than usual, makes me believe this.

ALTHOUGH, the deck has a G-1945 AOS code, which is evidently 2 years before the Leaf Back Bicycle design began. The Uncle Sam decks were produced in the early 40's (incl. 1945). So, it may be that the actual deck is an Uncle Sam deck.

The other possibility, is that this back design began earlier than previously thought, with a different name which was later changed. Since the deck was produced in 1945 (the same year the war ended), it may be possible that this deck was made earlier than the box, and a new box was created to match the deck which was originally printed as an Uncle Sam deck. I'm making the assumption that Uncle Sam decks were not printed after the war's end.

Anyways - I'm not sure we'll be able to come to any more certainty, but perhaps Mr. Dawson could weigh in.

Anyways, I will post the video a little later tonight.

12
A Cellar of Fine Vintages / Re: Incorrect Bicycle Oak Leaf Back Auction?
« on: January 20, 2014, 09:16:49 AM »
Unfortunately, you are both incorrect.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/271371038172?ssPageName=STRK:MESOX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1561.l2649

This is 100% authentic; I've had this deck for over 10 years. Both photos in my auction belong to the same deck of cards. It is the same box. The ace and jokers both have the same back design. I will take a video of the deck, or post more photos if either of you are interested. Let me know soon, as I may ship it out tomorrow.

I've been buying and selling vintage playing cards for over 10 years, I can assure you that I have never sold anything counterfeit or misrepresented an auction.

Lucky bidder, whoever won. Evidently this must be quite a rare deck.

EDIT: As you all know, USPC wasn't completely systematic. Lot's of oddities have existed over the years (i.e. a Leaf Back referred to as an Oak Leaf Back, or a different AOS being used than was typical). Thank you for waiting until after the auction ended to express your opinion.

Pages: [1]