Bicycle Distressed Expert Back Playing Cards Coming Soon

[bmpokerworld]

Check out our blog for pictures and info:

http://blog.bmpokerworld.com/2012/06/bicycle-distressed-expert-back-playing.html

Thanks!

[phantom1412]

Interesting deck, I'll have one in my collection, just one.
There is way too much of new decks.

[CBJ]

Hey guys,

Yeah I had a black and white one of this deck as well.. but I didn't post it because there's a major flaw in this deck... it's the wrong back design.

The one pictured in that pic that Mike posted is the Bicycle Old Fan Back, not the Expert Back

Mike posted this..

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-t3WQpUBshe0/T-Mg2vsXKJI/AAAAAAAAAx0/CbZer9SWI44/s320/bicycle+distressed+expert+back+playing+cards+box.jpg



but, this is actually the Old Fan Back: http://www.cypressfilms.com/bicycle/57/red.html



And this is the Expert back: http://www.cypressfilms.com/bicycle/29/red.html




I think this is a pretty big mistake on the part of USPCC.  Mike, do you know anyone at USPCC that you can tell this to?

CBJ

[Siegismyname]

Ooooo. Small pips. Big AoS. Faded look. Nice. Don't own a series 1800 but this looks a little too aged. Btw if they have not printed the deck, I would feedback to them to take note of the seal also. They should at least be aged too. Not some black seal with a sparkly white border. Just my 2 cents.

[Siegismyname]

Hey guys,

Yeah I had a black and white one of this deck as well.. but I didn't post it because there's a major flaw in this deck... it's the wrong back design.

The one pictured in that pic that Mike posted is the Bicycle Old Fan Back, not the Expert Back

Mike posted this..

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-t3WQpUBshe0/T-Mg2vsXKJI/AAAAAAAAAx0/CbZer9SWI44/s320/bicycle+distressed+expert+back+playing+cards+box.jpg



but, this is actually the Old Fan Back: http://www.cypressfilms.com/bicycle/57/red.html



And this is the Expert back: http://www.cypressfilms.com/bicycle/29/red.html




I think this is a pretty big mistake on the part of USPCC.  Mike, do you know anyone at USPCC that you can tell this to?

CBJ

Wow. Such minute differences. Took me a while to notice them. Wonder why they did that. Probably had the same problem like the rider back and the mandolin backs.

[Evan]

This is a nice deck but it doesn't seem like anything special so I think I'm going to pass on these for now

[Don Boyer]

Wow. Such minute differences. Took me a while to notice them. Wonder why they did that. Probably had the same problem like the rider back and the mandolin backs.

Unlikely.  Mandolins were created as a substitute for Riders to create gaffs altering the backs.  This was made necessary when USPC Legal realized they needed to better protect the Rider from counterfeiting by not allowing any alterations of the back design any longer.


The Fan Back and the Expert Back are nowhere near as common and far less likely to be forged.  Furthermore, the Rider restriction didn't cover altered colors, just altered design.  Case in point, the 1800 Series is still in print.  The design itself is still clearly recognizable as Rider and there's no hidden marks or Twilight Angels-style changes.  The aged look is achieved largely by color alteration.  The Tie Dye deck would also be covered under this if it went back into print.


But something like Twilight Angels and the Ultimate Marked Deck and any gaffs that make any changes to the design itself would be out-of-bounds.

I could go for this deck.  I like the vintage patterns.  They're cheaper than buying the real McCoys!

[bmpokerworld]

There were also certain decks that were grandfathered in.
Thanks!

[NathanCanadas]

To me this deck looks very beautiful. And USPCC's mistake isn't too bad IMO. I own the Series 1800s, and know some people that own vintage style decks (other than americana) such as the faded back and some others, and for the most part, without fanning powder, they handle like decks printed in the 1800s. So do the 125-year-anniversary editions. So I'm hoping this won't be the case for these decks.
Will they also come out in blue?

[bmpokerworld]

Don't know. As soon as I do I will let everyone know.
Thanks!

[LeonJL]

I could see myself getting maybe one or two of this just to play alongside with the 1800s. They might be similar to them but the pips and hopefully other faces should make them interesting. The back is also nice as well, something different than a rider back for a change.

[jmrock]

These are hysterical... When does it ever end... Not only do I not need yet another brand new deck that looks like it's weathered and has been taking a dirt nap, but with the completely incorrect name as well... As it was previously stated, this is a completely different back from the expert back (which it is named)... Oh well... Buy minions...

EDIT: So these are actually being produced by USPCC with the wrong name? SMDH...

[Don Boyer]

There were also certain decks that were grandfathered in.
Thanks!

Which ones?

To me this deck looks very beautiful. And USPCC's mistake isn't too bad IMO. I own the Series 1800s, and know some people that own vintage style decks (other than americana) such as the faded back and some others, and for the most part, without fanning powder, they handle like decks printed in the 1800s. So do the 125-year-anniversary editions. So I'm hoping this won't be the case for these decks.
Will they also come out in blue?

First of all, how do you know what a deck from the 19th century handles like?  You weren't even born until the 20th century was nearly over!  Do much vintage collecting lately?  Or did you steal the DeLorean and travel back to the Victorian Era/Wild West years?

I've never experienced any handling issues with the 125th Anniversary decks.  Have you?  They're just modern decks with vintage faces and a vintage back; they're not a "dirty deck" like the 1800s or this deck.  They're no different in handling than a typical pack of Bikes.

Americanas?  Dude - they're coated in Magic Finish.  They handle perfectly well.

Series 1800?  Maybe the original decks were tacky and terrible for flourishing, but the new ones have "Performance Coating", a.k.a. Magic Finish.

I have no idea where you get these ideas from, but you need a different source.  Perhaps it's just in your hands that they handle like crap...

These are hysterical... When does it ever end... Not only do I not need yet another brand new deck that looks like it's weathered and has been taking a dirt nap, but with the completely incorrect name as well... As it was previously stated, this is a completely different back from the expert back (which it is named)... Oh well... Buy minions...

EDIT: So these are actually being produced by USPCC with the wrong name? SMDH...

Maybe if we're lucky they'll fix the error before printing.  It could happen...  But then again, you're pretty much down on modern decks lately, even if they look vintage.  I suspect that if they fixed the name (or the back), you'd at least entertain the idea for a moment or two before deciding against them.

[MSimonart]

why so rude don, nathan just saying his opinion. Even if I don't agree with what he said either. The 125 decks aren't bad, and I have to say that the first version of 1800 series handled ok. I didn't understand why some people couldn't fan them? They were ok for me. Maybe it's just cause I have low standards

[NathanCanadas]

For me, the 125th year anniversary were the worst-clumping deck I've recently seen from USPCC. And for my series 1800s, they weren't terrible, but they weren't great either. Applying fanning powder greatly helped though. I specifically said "other than Americana" because of how well they handle. As for decks printed in the 1800s, I don't own any, but I do own a couple from the early (very early) 1900s, before WWI, and they don't handle nearly as well as decks nowadays IMO. I said "they handle like decks printed in the 1800s" to refer to the Series 1800s, designed to look like they belong to that era.

[jmrock]

@ Don... I have been down on modern decks lately but I did grab the new BeDecieved, Verve and the White Monarchs along with the T11 Heritage Series... And I'll probably be a sucker for the new Fulton's although I can honestly say that I can't stand his marketing at all (I mean I really can't stand it)...

@Nathan... I just couldn't agree with Don more... I try not to read anything you write these days because it just frustrates me... However, the pics of the deck you posted were unavoidable, but even they were backwards... Enough already... Take some pride... Arranging the photos to show true really isn't that much work at all... Just some constructive criticism...

EDIT: Truth be told, now that I found out USPCC is printing them, I'm probably in for at least one... I just can't believe that the collectors on the forums know the difference between the Fan & Expert Backs and USPCC made an error like that...

[Don Boyer]

why so rude don, nathan just saying his opinion. Even if I don't agree with what he said either. The 125 decks aren't bad, and I have to say that the first version of 1800 series handled ok. I didn't understand why some people couldn't fan them? They were ok for me. Maybe it's just cause I have low standards

Nathan is always saying his opinion.  And also tries passing opinion as facts.  But there's an expression: opinions are like assholes; everyone has one and most of them stink.  Perhaps I should do like JMRock and just ignore what he writes more often...and yes, his photos are horrendous - Nathan, get a camera or a decent camera phone.  Those webcam shots are just not cutting it.  Most webcams take images at 0.3 megapixels - not a very good resolution for a still image these days.

But enough with the Nathan bashing...

@ Don... I have been down on modern decks lately but I did grab the new BeDecieved, Verve and the White Monarchs along with the T11 Heritage Series... And I'll probably be a sucker for the new Fulton's although I can honestly say that I can't stand his marketing at all (I mean I really can't stand it)...

Did you check out the earlier Heritage Design decks?  This is the third four-deck set.  When the second set came out at Costco, they were selling for like $9 a set, boxed!  I hear it was the same for the first one.  This one, I have no idea.

EDIT: Truth be told, now that I found out USPCC is printing them, I'm probably in for at least one... I just can't believe that the collectors on the forums know the difference between the Fan & Expert Backs and USPCC made an error like that...

Why should it surprise you that people on here are knowledgeable about their Bicycle backs?  We're not exactly slouches, y'know... 

For me, the 125th year anniversary were the worst-clumping deck I've recently seen from USPCC. And for my series 1800s, they weren't terrible, but they weren't great either. Applying fanning powder greatly helped though. I specifically said "other than Americana" because of how well they handle. As for decks printed in the 1800s, I don't own any, but I do own a couple from the early (very early) 1900s, before WWI, and they don't handle nearly as well as decks nowadays IMO. I said "they handle like decks printed in the 1800s" to refer to the Series 1800s, designed to look like they belong to that era.

I never had trouble with my Anniversary decks.  I'll admit I'm not a big flourisher, but still, I know a decent deck when I handle one.

When you say "They handle like decks printed in the 1800s", you're talking about a deck made in the period from 1800 to 1899, not the Series 1800s, which were NOT made in the 1800s.  It's a terrible analogy.

[NathanCanadas]

When you say "They handle like decks printed in the 1800s", you're talking about a deck made in the period from 1800 to 1899, not the Series 1800s, which were NOT made in the 1800s.  It's a terrible analogy.

It wasn't an analogy. It was a joke. Look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoLBHfaqh30
@0:20 seconds in.

[Don Boyer]

It wasn't an analogy. It was a joke. Look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoLBHfaqh30
@0:20 seconds in.

If a joke requires an explanation, it's not funny and not much of a joke...

[NathanCanadas]

It wasn't an analogy. It was a joke. Look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoLBHfaqh30
@0:20 seconds in.

If a joke requires an explanation, it's not funny and not much of a joke...

Watevs. Making virtual jokes is pretty hard