About the thinnest deck made by USPC

[touya]

Next, looking at the flap of Skoal Bandit Playing Cards (1990), it is a short flap but no slit. This is a rare case seen on decks produced during the transition from long flaps to short flaps.

Skoal Bandit deck is also a novelty deck so it was only produced in 1990.

Even if a semi-short flap was made on a trial basis, I guess it was around the second half of 1989.

The box design of this semi-short flap is 'Horizontal' like the tack cases currently in circulation.

[touya]

I am in the middle of posting, but I will post it later because I will take care of my wife.

[Don Boyer]

Don - just recently I asked USPCC about the paper stock because a few of the people I know who have ordered custom decks had told me that Bicycle is insisting that crushed stock is a separate roll of paper and so I reached out to them and this is the email I got

"Yes, it has been a completely different roll of paper since I started here almost 10 years ago "
Tiffany Mahan Custom Sales Manager

Touya - this is my thickness chart, I don't update it much anymore but my thinnest deck is all the way at the bottom

http://magicorthodoxy.weebly.com/magic-reviews/card-thickness-how-will-these-cards-feel

I know this is an older post I'm replying to, but it was worth reviewing.

The thing about stock at USPC is this - all their paper comes from ELSEWHERE.  They make that paper into pasteboard stock themselves, but the paper itself isn't made by USPC.  And all of their pasteboard stocks are made from the same batches of paper.  These days, it's casino grade, standard grade and thin crush stocks - but the paper used to make them is identical from stock to stock.  Long gone are the days when the stocks themselves were truly different and sourced differently.  Sure, the thin crush is "different" from the standard and casino grade stuff - but only in that the end result is a thinner stock.  The paper used to create that roll of paper is no different than what was used to make the others.

USPC stocks are not completely consistent in their thickness.  They are offered as being with a specific range of thickness, and there's even some overlap between ranges.  A thin casino grade stock can be thinner than a thick standard stock.  This probably also holds true for the differences between thin crush and standard as well, but I can't say for sure as my knowledge of their stocks predates the existence of thin crush.  I can say with certainty that if you bought several packs of the same deck, especially if it was a mass-produced model and the decks were from different places and made at different times in different batches, you'll see there are differences in the stock thickness.  Sometimes, even in the same batch there can be differences - but the differences we're talking about are minute, really more like splitting hairs.

I liken it to when I'm offering my services altering playing cards to magicians.  I will sometimes shave a bit of paper off the edge of a card, and I can offer a magician a certain measure of how much paper gets removed, but that measure is always given to them with the caveat that the end result will be +/- 0.05 mm of the exact measure.  I'm simply unable to be more accurate than that, and even that degree of accuracy is devilishly hard to create.  If I offered that same measure to a magician a month later, making new adjustments to my tools, the resulting work will be very unlikely to be exactly the same measure as the previous work, because it's simply that close to impossible to replicate a given precise measurement with the precision of the tools I'm working with, making adjustments by hand.  I daresay that there are even minute differences from card to card with the work being done with the tools at the same adjustments, just because of the nature of work I do - I'm using a single-edge razor blade run along the edge of a jig to make my cuts, with the card held in the jig by my other hand, and there's only so much precision that can afford.

[touya]

『Winston Motorsport 20th Anniversary Playing Card』
 Was produced in 1991 as a commemorative deck.

 The long flaps made in 1991 can be said to be due to the use of a tack case made in the past.

 This is because the box can be unfolded in the vertical direction, so it cannot be produced with equipment for short flaps.

Also, the alphabet of the code is "N". This is a rare code used only around 1991.

There are many reasons why "N" was used, but I won't explain it here.

[touya]

『American Airlines Playing Cards』(1996)

This deck is also unique.
The alphabet of the code of the deck is "W" , made in 1996, but the tack case is a semi-short flap.

My guess is that the semi-short flap tack case could not be used for mass production items such as bicycle and TALLY-HO, and it had been in stock for several years, so I thought I used it for American Airlines deck as novelty deck.

We assume that novelty decks are made for advertising purposes only and that the rules regarding manufacturing specifications are free.

[touya]

This deck is unusually unique in recent years.

As you can see from the image, the Atlanta Olympic Steering Committee was established and the advertising mascot 'Izzy' was born in 1992.

After that, it shows 1993, 1994, 1995, the year 1996 when the Olympics were held, and about 4 years.

The production year of the deck is U, so it was made in 1995.

I don't think there are any Playing Cards that took so long to make one deck.

Also, every time I see the sports mascot Izzy, it reminds me of Trimm-Dich from Adidas.

[touya]

『StreamLine Playing Cards』made in Spain

This deck is also unique, so I will describe it.

The alphabet of the code is' B '.
The code "B" is also an alphabet which is not used originally, but was used in 1976 and 1996.

It's a long flap tuck case, so at first glance you might think it was made in 1976, but we can tell it was made in 1996 by taking into consideration the ® mark, bar code, and closure sticker.

It is generally recognized that long flap tuck cases are out of circulation by around 1993, but did the Spanish factory process the past inventory?

Comparing it with the 70 s deck, the way of folding the box is different. The material and thickness are different. This is assumed to be a new tack case made at the Spanish factory. (image reference)

This deck does not follow the rules of USPCC. I thought it was a rare case, so I wrote it down.


By the way, the quality of this deck is high quality, but it is different from the quality of USPC.

[touya]

Now, the introduction has become long, but I introduced these six decks because I wanted to mention them here.

What I wanted to explain is that

 “The four-digit code of small order decks produced only that year, such as advertising decks, novelty decks, and commemorative decks, basically starts with 6”.

In other words, a deck with a code that starts with 6 is a small-order small order deck.
For example, if there is a code “L6 ○○○”, I think that it is no problem to think of it as a low-volume product.

The number of the code is basically the production control number of USPC.

When the production year changes, the number also changes.
The code numbers for the small-order decks from the era we introduced here (80's ~) always begin with 6.

U.S. Marine Corps Playing Cards are also small order decks, so of course the code starts with 6.

[touya]

The era when extremely thin Playing Cards circulated in the market seems to have peaked around 1980-2000.

Since the 1970s, USPCC's overseas production bases have expanded. In addition to the Canadian and Spanish factories, there was also a factory in Asia for a period of time.

By the 90s, the number of factories had decreased.

At that time, USPCC also had acquisition problems.
Some of the decks made during that time could not show 'USPCC' and some of the ace spades were unmarked.

I think that there are various reasons, but the reason for the change to the short flap and the deck itself has become thinner, As Mr.don said in the past, I guess that “cost reduction” is the most important factor.
I tried measuring the weight. (See image)
Until the 70s, Playing Cards seemed heavy.

For USPCC, the “small order deck”, which has no limit on quality, could have been made simpler by reducing the cost by reducing materials.

[Don Boyer]

『StreamLine Playing Cards』made in Spain

This deck is also unique, so I will describe it.

The alphabet of the code is' B '.
The code "B" is also an alphabet which is not used originally, but was used in 1976 and 1996.

It's a long flap tuck case, so at first glance you might think it was made in 1976, but we can tell it was made in 1996 by taking into consideration the mark, bar code, and closure sticker.

It is generally recognized that long flap tuck cases are out of circulation by around 1993, but did the Spanish factory process the past inventory?

Comparing it with the 70 s deck, the way of folding the box is different. The material and thickness are different. This is assumed to be a new tack case made at the Spanish factory. (image reference)

This deck does not follow the rules of USPCC. I thought it was a rare case, so I wrote it down.


By the way, the quality of this deck is high quality, but it is different from the quality of USPC.

The Spanish-made Streamlines were produced by Fournier, in Vitoria, Spain - they are an old company that was purchased by USPC some years ago. They mostly operate independently of USPC but have occasionally produced decks for USPC under their brand names. This was one example; another would be the Bicycle Prestige line of 100% plastic decks.

Production of Streamlines has changed over the years - at one point they subcontracted to an unnamed Chinese printer for this and several other lesser-known brands as a test in cost-saving, but the test was unsatisfactory due to much lower quality - now only Maverick, USPC’s least-expensive brand, is made in China by a third-party printer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[touya]

Thank you for the detailed explanation, Don.
That's very helpful. : -)

[touya]

Please tell me one thing.

When is the USPCC dating code written in blue?

Why did they use blue letters?

[Don Boyer]

Please tell me one thing.

When is the USPCC dating code written in blue?

Why did they use blue letters?

Honestly, I’m not sure. It could possibly have been to make the letter and numbers stand out more against the predominantly black printing used for most Ace of Spades designs. But that’s only a guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[touya]

Thank you, Don: -)

The Coca-Cola Playing Cards in the image were made in 1941, but it seems that the blue code was already used around this time. I guess it has become a black code since 1980.

[touya]

Does anyone want U.S. Marine Corps Playing Cards?

We have three more brand new items in stock.

If anyone wants a deck, please let me know.:-)