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 - Samurai007

Pages: [1]
1
Playing Card Plethora / Re: Most Expensive Deck Opened
« on: January 26, 2014, 03:19:16 PM »
I open 1 of every deck I get, and unlike many collectors, I don't buy doubles on purpose.  Effectively, that means I open pretty much every deck I get.  I only have 4 decks that are duplicates, (they were part of package deals on ebay), and I left those sealed.  I enjoy the cards for their artwork and design, not collectible value.  By far the most expensive deck I've ever bought (and thus opened) was the Piatnik Italian Cats deck for $40.  I've also bought a few decks in the $20-25 range, but typically $15-20 is my upper limit to spend on a deck.

2
Introduce Yourself / Hello again!
« on: January 25, 2014, 09:32:08 AM »
    Name:  Samurai007, or my real name is Tom
    Where you are from: Northern California
    Are you a Cardist? Magician? Collector? a combination of the 3?:  I'm a collector and I enjoy the artwork.
    What got you into the arts?:  Several years ago I started writing a Role-playing game (like Dungeons and Dragons, but set in a fantasy steampulp Victorian era) that uses a deck of playing cards instead of dice for determining the success or failure of actions in the game.  In that era, cards are a gentleman's game, but only ruffians play with dice!  While doing research and play-testing the game, I naturally looked into the availability of cards and what's out there, and discovered the recent explosion in collectable card decks, design studios and artists creating unique and interesting art in the form of cards.  I started buying a few decks with the excuse that it would look cool and add flavor when I was play-testing my game, and before I knew it I had several hundred different decks!  (By the way, I'm still working on the game, I have 130 pages written and still going, I hope to publish it later this year!)
    How you found out about the forums. We are always secretly curious:  When UC went down a while back, it looked like it was done for so I looked for a different card forum and found this place.  UC is down again (switching forum software I think), so here I am again.  Hopefully with new ownership all around the relationship between sites will be improved.

So, that's my intro, hi all, let me know if you have any questions for me!

3
Playing Card Plethora / Re: Peafowl Playing Cards
« on: January 24, 2014, 03:10:06 AM »
Quote from: 10ofclubs on January 23, 2014, 11:58:15 PM
I think the courts are a little harsh on the eyes and don't love the fact that the red kings have no red on them other than the indices.

Do we know what the backs look like? If this is a peacock inspired deck it'd be cool if the back design was designed like a peacocks tail feathers. When you fanned the cards it'd look just like a peacock spreading it's tail. The motions and shape are pretty similar.

This preview card was put out months ago in some of Aloy's decks, such as the purple floral deck.  When he say's there will be 2 versions, I wonder if the other will be black...  IMO, it looks much better on black than white.


4
Playing Card Plethora / Re: My One Year Anniversary Giveaway
« on: January 23, 2014, 11:21:20 AM »
Ace of Spades

5
Playing Card Plethora / Re: The New Deck Report and Archive
« on: February 19, 2013, 09:17:29 PM »
I received my Medusa deck in the mail today.  Beautiful artwork, and I like the custom pips that look interesting but are still recognizable as the proper suit.  My only small complaint would be the grey border around the art.  It's not as bad as the grey borders on the Heraldry deck because this has a white background, not a grey one like that deck, but it still makes it look somewhat blurry and not as sharp as it could be, especially on the Jokers.  Still, I like the deck a lot and would recommend it for anyone looking for a nice fantasy themed deck.

6
Playing Card Plethora / Re: Bicycle Favole Playing Cards
« on: February 19, 2013, 02:16:50 AM »
Wow, love that one!

7
Playing Card Plethora / Re: State of the state of Kickstarter decks
« on: February 18, 2013, 09:54:29 PM »
Just wanted to say that I and many others received our Deck of the Extraordinary Voyages weeks ago.  The only people who don't have them yet are the international folks, and those are on their way now, from what the creator said.

8
Playing Card Plethora / Re: Founders Playing Cards (KS)
« on: February 15, 2013, 03:22:22 AM »
Quote from: Zaid on February 14, 2013, 03:01:14 PM
This deck is almost fully funded in only 4 days, $12,000+! That seems to indicate that the price really isn't a barrier for most people.
If you think of it as $10 for the deck and $3 for shipping, it's no different than any other deck.

9
Playing Card Plethora / Re: Founders Playing Cards (KS)
« on: February 13, 2013, 01:50:35 AM »
Quote from: Utterfool on February 12, 2013, 09:02:00 PM
I am very impressed with this deck.
It definitely feels like a good deal of effort went into it.
I also like the choice of court cards. Unfortunately I feel there was one miss on the courts. Rosie the Riveter
There are enough influential american woman that I feel they could have chosen a real woman (I know the character of Rosie was based off of a real woman, but still a character) to represent American achievements.
Betsy Ross
Sandra Day O'connor
Rosa Parks
Martha Washington
Abigail Adams
Sacajewea
Molly Pitcher
(you get the idea)

Rosie is indeed iconic and I can understand why she was chosen. It is just something I feel could have been better
One of the only things really, as I said I like this deck a lot and have certainly pledged.

If you notice, each suit of cards features people from a different era.  Spades are Revolutionary War era, Hearts are from the early United States, Clubs are from the Civil War, and Diamonds are from the early 20th century.  Thus, they needed a famous woman from the early 20th century for the Queen of Diamonds.

10
Playing Card Plethora / Re: Is UC Down For The Count?
« on: February 12, 2013, 01:13:56 PM »
Quote from: BiggerDee on February 12, 2013, 12:17:41 PM
From what I read, there's a 99+% chance that it is gone for good.
What happened to it?

11
Playing Card Plethora / Re: Founders Playing Cards (KS)
« on: February 12, 2013, 03:07:56 AM »
Quote from: Don Boyer on February 12, 2013, 02:55:33 AM
Quote from: lameomaster on February 12, 2013, 02:37:46 AM
I like everything about these cards, but they really aren't worth $13 a deck to me on top of $10 international shipping. The courts are 50/50 for me, with some of them really well done, and some of them just silly-looking and unfitting. The box is beautiful, with all the embossing, I like these subtler american decks without red all over the place, the tax stamp was a nice touch. I think I'd prefer the back design if it were a completely filled rectangle instead of wavy in the middle edges. But yeah, I love the overall theme and design of this deck, but it costs a tad too much for me to justify pledging for them. They'll probably get funded anyway, and I could pick them up from a reseller eventually.

Well, no one ever buys just one deck.  At three decks they're only $11, and it keeps going down - you could pool resources with other collectors in your country, right?

Having said that, I have my doubts based on price along.  I hate accepting attempts to set precedents like letting the MSRP of a deck rise to $13 when it's not exceptionally better than any under-$10 releases.  I'm with Michael in that they're nicer than anything coming out of historical museum gift shops, but it's not enough to justify that price.  Even if I bought three, it still looks pricey at $11, and I don't even want that many.

In the video it says it uses "casino-grade stock"... if true, could that partly account for the higher price?

12
Playing Card Plethora / Re: Founders Playing Cards (KS)
« on: February 12, 2013, 03:06:15 AM »
I think it looks great, and while the price is high, it's not so astronomical that I won't pledge.  But what I want to know is:

Who is behind this?  The website links to a placeholder with an email address.  No names, no idea how much experience they have at making a card set.  That worries me a bit.

Second, while it talks about other editions, are they pledge goals that can be unlocked at certain levels?  Some of the alternate versions sound cool.

13
Playing Card Plethora / Re: Bicycle Venom and Venom Strike, from Alakazam Magic (UK)
« on: February 10, 2013, 01:58:45 PM »
I agree, and letting people know what they really look like was the reason I posted.  The face cards look very nice and are certainly unique, the card quality is Bicycle standard, nothing special (Some of the other decks I bought at the same time, like the Artisan deck, feel a little better IMHO).  I'm not saying don't buy them, but know what you are actually getting.

By the way, you might also notice that any pics that show the back of the Venom deck have also been lightened.  I didn't buy the Venom deck, only Venom Strike, but assuming the cross-deck double-backer card in the Venom Strike deck is accurate, the white/grey outline of the snakes and the red swirl are clearly visible, but the other details (red swirls and grey swirls in the "open" spaces" are very faint.  Also, while the design is a mirror image, it is a 1-way back because they put a grey, smokey pattern behind the picture that is lighter and darker in different places on 1 set of snakes than the other set.  Here is a scan of that back:


14
Playing Card Plethora / Re: Bicycle Venom and Venom Strike, from Alakazam Magic (UK)
« on: February 10, 2013, 04:05:34 AM »
Quote from: Don Boyer on February 10, 2013, 02:53:16 AM
Quote from: Samurai007 on February 10, 2013, 02:15:56 AM
While it is a very cool looking design, I don't know how USPCC could print such a muddy-looking back and say "Yep, everything looks great, go ahead and run them all like that!  It should have been much, MUCH brighter and striking... I mean, c'mon, it's blue skulls and a golden, coiled snake, called Venom Strike, it should have a bold design that practically leaps at you from across a room!

Very disappointing.

This might not be USPC's fault.  It could just as easily have been some poor color choices made by the designer.  It's distinctly possible that the designer created the cards in RGB and simply converted them to CMYK to send to USPC, not realizing or remembering that the conversion can alter the colors from what they appeared like before and you need to go over it post-conversion.  Occasionally I've seen designers inadvertently post CMYK images auto-converted to RGB on Kickstarter and they look almost like negatives - when they convert them to RBG the right way, however, they look much more normal.

Things like this happen in contract work a lot, more than you'd realize.  Some idiot screws up the language of the contract or submits faulty information, and the contractor has to go with the faulty information because that's what's written in the contract, even if there's no way possible that the contractee wanted it that way.  Do it the correct way rather than the contracted way and the contractee has grounds to sue for breach of contract.  You go with the lesser of two evils.

I'm willing to wager that Alakazam decided to forgo getting printed proofs.  It would explain the cards looking like that and USPC could simply say "This is exactly what you contracted for," leaving Alakazam with no legal recourse to get the cards redone without paying for another print run.  It's not as if USPC doesn't know how to make a proper black deck, now is it?

You may be right, but if I were working at USPCC, and I saw the first test batch come off the press looking like that, I'd call up the designer, quickly scan and email them a pic of the back, and say "Hey, they came out rather muddy looking, here's a scan, are you sure this is how you want it?"  I mean, that should just be common decency and quality control!  Because even if some other guy designed them, the cards will have a big "Bicycle" logo on every box, and that means the quality of the cards will reflect on Bicycle much more than Alakazam Magic. 

Also, if they didn't ask for a printing proof, this deck should become the poster child for why that is a bad idea...

15
Playing Card Plethora / Re: Bicycle Venom and Venom Strike, from Alakazam Magic (UK)
« on: February 10, 2013, 02:39:15 AM »
Here's what it should have looked like, brighented and increased the contrast.  Took less than a minute to do it, not hard at all.



And incidentally, that's likely also what was done with that promo picture above, which is why the white is similarly brighter...

16
Playing Card Plethora / Re: Bicycle Venom and Venom Strike, from Alakazam Magic (UK)
« on: February 10, 2013, 02:15:56 AM »
Quote from: Don Boyer on January 31, 2013, 11:28:02 AM
...and now, the Venom Strike deck...

Now that I have these in hand (Thanks for the fast shipping,   bmpokerwrld!), I have to say I'm a little disappointed.  In hand, the back design is very dull and faded in color, the skulls blend in with the background and the snake is a dirty brownish yellow.  Looking at the pictures from that post, it's now obvious to me that the picture was lightened and retouched.  Check out how bright the whites are on this card pic:



vs the whites on these pictures:





The blue skulls and yellow snake are similarly much brighter in that picture than they are in real life.  Here is a completely unretouched scan on the card back as it actually looks:



While it is a very cool looking design, I don't know how USPCC could print such a muddy-looking back and say "Yep, everything looks great, go ahead and run them all like that!  It should have been much, MUCH brighter and striking... I mean, c'mon, it's blue skulls and a golden, coiled snake, called Venom Strike, it should have a bold design that practically leaps at you from across a room!

Very disappointing.

17
Playing Card Plethora / Re: Bicycle Venom and Venom Strike, from Alakazam Magic (UK)
« on: February 07, 2013, 09:35:38 PM »
I spotted it and placed my order last night for about 5 different decks, including the Venom Strike.

18
Playing Card Plethora / Re: Bicycle Venom and Venom Strike, from Alakazam Magic (UK)
« on: February 06, 2013, 02:35:42 AM »
Quote from: bmpokerworld on January 31, 2013, 11:27:11 AM
We should have these and the Venom Strike decks in stock by the middle of next week. They will be $9.95 per deck.

Thanks!
I might be placing an order again soon, so I think I'll wait till you have these in stock.  Any other decks that you'll be getting soon?  It'd be nice if you had a "Coming soon" page with pictures of decks arriving in the next month or so, the expected arrival date and price.  It would be a BIG help in deciding when to order so that I can save on shipping and not have some great deck appear a day or 2 after I place my order and be kicking myself for not waiting a bit longer...

19
Playing Card Plethora / Re: Legends Deck, coming Jan 2013 from David Blaine and Bill Kalush
« on: February 03, 2013, 11:26:58 AM »
Quote from: Michael on February 01, 2013, 04:59:34 PM
I think the biggest plus for me is knowing that it isn't from USPCC. I have nothing wrong with USPCC but I like the idea of these coming from a quality printing company with comparable prices when it reaches us, the consumers.

I look forward to the next set of Legends or even other companies being bold enough to try and use the same printing company! Wonder if they have more finished and stocks than the very limited selection that USPCC offers. Because if they do, we might soon see some really high quality decks coming out! That or some really shitty decks come out too :P

There are other good printers out there, have been for a while.  I received 2 other non-USPCC decks within the last week besides the Legends deck, and IMO they are both as good or better in quality than the Legends deck.  The Deck of the Extraordinary Voyages, from Bent Castle Workshop's Kickstarter was especially nice IMHO.  At one point he considered going with USPCC though it would have meant compromising the design of his deck, but luckily backers convinced him not to.  It turned out beautifully.

Pages: [1]