What makes you say that Don? I would have loved to have one (as a collector) I have many uncuts...waiting until I move to get them all framed and hung. But, the CT uncut would have been a nice addition.
I'm kind of surprised, considering that most people around here considered that deck one of D&D's laziest designs. As far as I'm concerned, even if I was an uncut collector, I wouldn't touch the Chinatown uncut if you paid me to.
That's a little harsh to say don't you think? I'm not sure "most" people actually considered this deck to be one of the laziest designs. I mean the V5 and V6 was merely a colour variation from V4, should you consider V4 as a new design apart from the three editions prior to itself.
I personally think it's a fancy deck, suited well and greatly timed for the Chinese New Year. Some may consider them sly as they target the Asian market to their profits, but it's just their strategy, there's nothing wrong with that.
Please, if you hate it that much, send me the money and I'll get myself one of those sheets.
I wouldn't call this lazy. There are so many other decks like this out there with just customized back, jokers, and AoS. I would love on these uncuts!
OK, think back to the original Fulton's - the Clip Joint deck. It had a cool '40s look, as if it was something out of film noir. The spot cards all had that one distinctive pip, all the aces were done large as opposed to just the aces of spades, and the face cards, while generally the Bicycle standard, were recolored to fit the design of the deck.
Now, Chinatown, the new Fulton's deck - It has a fancy box, I'll give you that, but the color, not the red of red money envelopes as advertised, is more like orange. Even in their own photos the tuck box looks much more red - kudos to the photographer, but boos to the designer. There's plenty of gold foil in the box, but none on the cards. (Monarchs did that - and they were largely not well received, also in part due to an overheated hype machine pushing them as the greatest cards since the dawn of time, while in reality they weren't all that exciting, more of an OK deck.)
The card back is done in the same orange, with a non-foil gold that's so close to the orange in color temperature and shade that they practically blend into each other unless seen under a bright light, while Fulton's Clip Joints were extremely clear in stark black and white. So the back looks like a muddy mess most of the time.
Then the faces - the red on the cards is not just a shade of the orange-ish color on the box and the back. It was the EXACT SHADE of the Vintage Plaid decks. In fact, take a Vintage Plaid court card, strip away the yellowish background and change all the yellow to the non-metallic gold used on the Chinatown card back, and presto, you have the SAME EXACT LOOK of a Chinatown court card of the same value. They could have used the same exact plates to make this deck, and only would have needed to change a little bit of ink!
I give them a few points for the pretty box. But that's not the cards, that's the box.
I give them a few more points for a cool ace of spades. I'm neutral on the jokers - some loved them, some hated them, but they fit the Fulton's theme in that the same was said about the similar jokers in the Clip Joint.
The back, if actually done in metallic gold, would have looked awesome and been worth several points, but in the muddy non-metallic gold, no, that's a point deduction.
The orangy color instead of a real red? Points lost. The fact that the faces are practically identical to another deck design in a different "product line" of decks? Big points lost. Seriously, they were released so close to each other, it's entirely possible they were part of the same print run with just a minor ink change.
This was rehashed to death in the topic on the deck itself, by me and others. Check it out.
