Ink to stock ratio: It's not a thing.

[Don Boyer]

I can speak only from my personal, anecdotal experience with the decks I own. My worst handling deck is the Theory11 original sentinels. I think they used super glue as the coating of that deck.

With that exception out of the way, I'd say that my most clumpy, poorest handling decks are generally the D&D decks. Not sure why, but (though I love the design) the Clip Joints and Ace Fultons seem to get rather clumpy in a very short amount of time. 20-30 minutes versus perhaps several hours of constant use. My Fantastiques came out of the box with a bad crown to the cards, quite warped. Those are all predominantly white decks with relatively low ink.

The best handling decks I have are both black. Again, this is just to my own hands and environment, I can't speak for you. My Tally-Ho Vipers and my Tendril deck have been smooth and fannable for very long amounts of time. I have one Tendril decks that I've used multiple times a week since I got the shipment of them months ago, and they still fan very nicely. And recall I live in terribly humid south Florida.

As I've gotten a little more experience with different decks, my primary concern now is stock, but only from the point of view of the thickness and snap. I love the stock I did Tendril on and will most likely use that again. Magic finish is a given, I honestly don't think you'd pick anything else when designing a deck. I haven't thought about ink levels once when working on Aurum.

USPCC has generally narrowed the choices down to the point that pretty much any combo will work out fine. Choose magic finish, pick the stock you like the snappiness of and move right along.

And really, has "poor handling" really stopped any of you from buying a deck? I'd wager not.

The new Sentinels are a world apart from the old ones.  VERY smooth.


And yes, I've chosen to not buy poorly-handling decks.  It's one of many reasons I stopped getting D&D decks!  But it's also because as a collector, I've become more selective, and who needs to spend money on a crap deck?  There's too many good choices to bother with a lousy one.


Nowadays, nearly any USPC deck has fine handling out of the box.  Especially if it has Magic Finish on it.  I've heard rumor that Magic Finish wears out faster than some would like, but it's just rumor - I have no proof either way.

[redtank151]

I admit this post will probably be not as well written or as thought out as what you guys have been putting out but I'll try.

I do believe in stock to ink ratio, in fact I went and grabbed my Americana deck and an NOC deck, which use the same stock and finish and after playing with each one for awhile the Americana started to clump up faster but before it started clumping up, it fanned quite a lot better than the NOC deck. The White Ghost deck ( air cushion ) did not fan as well for me as the Black ghost deck ( also air cushion ) ( v2 ) but there definitely was a difference in even-ness. Which really intrigued me, I don't have any theories on this other than that it varies person to person.

All this debate is not helped by pretend finishes out there like Premium 909 or putting different finishes on the box than the actual cards causing placebo effects and in turn causing people to tell stories that are not proven facts.

so Utterfool, ( you seem a lot more intelligent than your display name implies ) I don't think more ink means worse performance, I really think it varies person to person.

Also deckreview, I looked at my viper deck, it isn't really metallic ink, its a grey made to look like metallic ink because the finish is kind of glossy giving the illusion of metallic ink, unless I somehow got a deck without metallic ink ( I bought mine from Ellusionist recently, it has UV-500 Airflow ) Since it is my only UV-500 deck, I cannot compare it to other decks. So I won't say more about the vipers.

I think metallic ink does in fact make a deck worse, since my Alchemy deck ( with a full gold metallic inked back ) fanned pretty bad.

But after all is being said, you cannot deny that an inky deck definitely feels different from a not so inky deck with the same stock and finish. That different might be good or might be bad, varies from person to person. I personally love inky decks they, perform better for me, such a pity they seem to be less durable. Since I believe it's a person to person thing, I don't think you can prove one is better than the other.

You may have different opinions, you probably do but I really thank you for taking the time to read my opinions and discoveries.

I generally agree with Encarded and his post made me think that humidity levels may have something to do with how inky decks handle compared to less inky ones. I live it the perpetually hot and humid Singapore where the weather report for 30 years is the same forever.

[Don Boyer]

I live it the perpetually hot and humid Singapore where the weather report for 30 years is the same forever.

That statement right there makes it hard to call your experiences typical.  No deck will perform well over time under those conditions - the sturdiest deck for you, aside from something made of plastic, would be Aladdin 1001s with Smooth Finish.  The heat and humidity can even affect the deck while it's still in the box!


But I will agree that it's very subjective and there's not even anecdotal evidence supporting the claims that "heavily-inked" decks perform better or worse than "lightly-inked" decks because of the difference in the amount of ink used.


Ink-to-stock is real only in the sense that you have paper and it absorbs ink.  But as far as having an effect on performance - no proof either way that the ink is a factor.

[john]

DelMagic: I just discovered that the Bicycle Archangels were also manufactured using the same process as the Eco Edition, with renewable sources for the paper, vegetable-based inks and a starch-based finish.  So that's TWO decks in the marketplace...

JMRock: whoever said I hung up my star and six-shooter?  Perhaps when I go to bed, most of the time... 

DeckReview: YES, there IS indeed practical proof that the metallic ink decks made BEFORE the advent of Magic Finish did suffer in performance.  MF was practically created as a direct response to that issue.  Not only did the Vipers take a bit of a hit, but who remembers all those early Diavoli decks with metallic ink and crappy performance?  Alchemist, Alchemist X, Phoenix...

First deck to use the finish: the metallic-inked Gold Arcane deck.
First deck to use "Magic Finish" on the box: the metallic-inked Bicycle Brimstone.
First deck to use "Performance Coating" on the box: the slightly metallic-inked Artifice deck.
First smooth-paper deck to use Magic Finish: CARC's Bee Erdnase 1902 black/SILVER Acorn Back in Ivory Finish.

The only non-metallic "first" for Magic Finish was for first deck to use neither "traditional" name for Magic Finish, nor any of USPC's stock finish names: the non-metallic White Arrcos, which called it "Premium Finish".

But back to the point - the only known and confirmed ink factor to affect deck performance in any way would be use of a metallic ink, which is "neutralized" with the use of Magic Finish on the deck.  Pre-MF decks with metal ink had relatively poor performance, while newer metal-ink decks coated with MF have excellent performance in comparison to most decks on the market, not just the metal-ink pre-MF ones.

Fixed tbh, get yo facts right before posting .

I love how this is almost like a controversy now, do we all really care about a so called ink to stocks ratio? As long as my decks handles well i'm extremely happy. And yes don you are correct about there is more to this argument between rob and alex beside ink to stock, don't know if that's in this quote or not your posts are so long i don't care to read them again. This is to Rob and Alex. Feelings were hurt, get over it it has been months, lets just keep it about cards and not clashes between you 2 from now on, 

[DelMagic]

Well, I asked USPCC about the ink base:

I am a magician and playing card collector. On one of the forums I visit, people were discussing the impact of the amount of ink on a card and how it handles. I'm not looking for an answer on that question.

However, I was wondering if the base liquid used in the ink solutions you apply to playing card stock was water-based (aqueous) or solvent-based (organic). If it isn't a secret, could you please let me know what it is in general? I am not looking for a specific recipe or formulation which I realize would be proprietary. I am just looking for a general description.

Thank you.
____________________________________
Their answer (not exactly helpful):

The inks we use to print our cards are based on the conventional lithographic process.

The majority of information from basic ink research would provide a good understanding of the art.

Regards,
Consumer Relations

[NathanCanadas]

So pretty much they said:
"This is confidential information, we can't tell you much of anything."

[redtank151]

Seems like they gave a very political answer to avoid your question almost entirely.

What type of ink do you use? We use a lithographic process.

Oh USPCC.

[NathanCanadas]

Seems like they gave a very political answer to avoid your question almost entirely.

What type of ink do you use? We use a lithographic process.

Oh USPCC.

I sort of understand them though. If they revealed their trade secrets and didn't have such a strong reputation, french, spanish companies and other great ones such as Brahma Playing cards would have already outgunned them!

[Aaron]

Well guys, we now know that they use a printing press to make their cards. That determines that more ink and less ink do not affect performance

[xela]

Their answer is basically spend 15 minutes and do the research yourself.

Still, it would be helpful to know the type of ink they use before diving into ink theory. There is no way ink could mess up paper and cause performance issues.

[Utterfool]

Ok

Here is the experiment that can be conducted to end this argument

This will cost a bit of money. But it can easily be made a blinded experiment so that the opinion will be based solely on the handling and feel and have no bias by opinions towards if one "believes" a deck with higher ink ratio performs worse or not. it can also easily be made double blinded (which is the experiment I will describe below)

this is the preparation
deck creation
you will need to create a deck in limited number. You can go with the Bicycle site that lets you create small runs or if you wish to save money go with Brahma or some other small company.
To eliminate the possibility that difference in handling might be due to different runs of paper stock or formulations of finish the deck will be half of the cards with a high ratio of ink to stock and half with a low ratio of ink to stock. Best would be 28 cards on each uncut sheet be all black and 28 be all white. this gives the greatest difference in ratio, It will also guarantee that the stock is exactly the same and that the finish is exactly the same for each deck. I am not an expert handler or flourisher, so if it is the case that you need a full deck to accurately test flourishes and what not you simply combine the whites to whites from two decks and the blacks to blacks from the same deck (this will insure that the two full decks are still equal in all ways but ink ratio)
before the experiment the decks should all be boxed up in identical boxes and placed in 2 deck sets. 50% of the boxes will have black decks on top and 50% will have white decks on top.
Blind creation
you will need to create that a test subject can not see into. It should have enough room so they can move their hands and arms about easily inside. and probably a dark cloth covering the front. Of course a simple blind fold would do as well, but being blind folded is sometimes disturbing to the test subject.
test subject
it would be best to get a sample size of >100 if possible I would not go less than 50 though just for accuracy of the statistics.
the persons back ground is not important, but at the same time it would not hurt the truth of the results by biasing the sample population to those who are familiar with handling and the feel of cards. using experienced flourishers actually may be helpful so the cards can be put to the full test. This part is certainly up for debate because some would say for a true test you need a fully deverse sample and others would say for a true test you need to fully utilize the cards.

Double blind experiment
A group of the boxed deck sets are given to each experimenter.
The experimenter places the top deck in the box in front of the test subject (or just hands it to them if they are blind folded.
the experimenter will not know which deck they gave to the test subject first until the test subject opens it.
the test subject will then use this deck for a designated time period (lets say 15 minutes) and then place it back in the box.
the experimenter will then provide the test subject with the bottom deck and the test subject will then use that deck for the same period of time.
The test subject will then ask which deck they felt performed/handled better, and will record the result.
Because the experimenter did not know which deck he gave the test subject first he is in a blind and is therefore unbiased (can't show there bias)
Because the test subject can not see the deck they are performing with he is blind and is therefore unbiased.

If this experiment is continued with a large enough sample a statistically significant result can be shown that will guide with fact which, if any, is better.

A result of more choosing the low ink ratio would show that High ink ratio does indeed make the handling worse
A result of people choosing relatively equally would show that there is indeed no effect from the ink ratio to handling
A result of more people choosing the high ink ratio would show that high ink ratio actually makes cards handle better.


It was mentioned above by someone else who I can not remember, that there is the placebo effect around decks. there are in fact many placebo a effects around branded items.
If someone has heard a bad review of a deck by someone they respect, they tend to like that deck, and vice versus. If they have had a deck handle badly from a company in the past they will tend to find that all their decks handle poorly, and vice versus. If they have had a deck with high ratio of ink to card stock perform great in the past they will tend to find that they feel all decks with high ink perform well, and vice versus. If they like a particular finish, dislike a card stock, were beaten with a brick of Arrcos as a child these will all affect they way they perceive a deck handling.

Until this experiment or one similar to this is done any information about ink to card stock ratio will be just opinion. Even if this information comes from a large company (though they might have a closer to real answer because they will draw from a larger sample)

Opinions are like orgasms.... I don't care if you have one 

[redtank151]

Unless someone actually bothers to go round to doing the experiment as stated by Utterfool we will still have to deal anecdotal evidence, ( the best kind of evidence ever ).

You really got me with ' beaten with a brick of arrcos as a child '.

Laughed more than I should have.

But perhaps a flaw with the experiment is that an person who has experienced black decks before can definitely feel whether a deck is inky or not even when blind folded and gagged. So in their mind they would go *click* this is the inky one therefore its worse or something like that.

[xela]

The thing about doing an experiment with a hypothesis is that the hypothesis is not true until proven true.

In this case, the hypothesis is that ink:stock ratio negatively impacts a deck of cards when the saturation is high.

There is no evidence to support the case. Most anecdotal evidence supports the opposite.

Even with the experiment UF proposed, the variables are too high to count. We know for a fact that if ink saturation has any effect whatsoever, that effect is extremely minuscule. There are so many things along those lines that can affect handling it's crazy.

Which is why it's absolutely idiotic to rate a deck of cards on something that is barely even a legitimate hypothesis.

The point I am making this entire time is that it's one thing to propose an idea, and then test it to see if it's true. It's a completely different ball game when you come up with an idea, tell everyone it's true, create ratings systems out of them, tell reviewers that they should review based on this idea, and turn it into a real thing when it is anything but.

Think of it like this: There are tons of theories about the universe. One of the cool ones is a multiverse concept. It is literally an idea someone had and goes very little beyond that. At this point in time it is not testable. Do we put this idea into text books? Do we have scientists doing work under the assumption that this idea is the truth?

No.

Because that would be fucking stupid.

:]

[Utterfool]

Before I go into the discussion below I will state my belief on this subject for the record
"I believe that with the modern materials used any deck that is made out of high quality materials will have basically the same handling"
"I believe that handling comes down to individual preference and bias"
"any deck that genuinely handles badly or "worse" is due to the conditions on the day of manufacture each of the decks components  and also of the deck , as well as the storage, and climate "
"I also believe that if someone likes a deck design sufficiently they will overlook any handling issues, even possibly to the extremes of a papercut on every fan"

The thing about doing an experiment with a hypothesis is that the hypothesis is not true until proven true.

In this case, the hypothesis is that ink:stock ratio negatively impacts a deck of cards when the saturation is high.

There is no evidence to support the case. Most anecdotal evidence supports the opposite.

Even with the experiment UF proposed, the variables are too high to count. We know for a fact that if ink saturation has any effect whatsoever, that effect is extremely minuscule. There are so many things along those lines that can affect handling it's crazy.

Which is why it's absolutely idiotic to rate a deck of cards on something that is barely even a legitimate hypothesis.

Actually in the above experiment I failed to state a hypothesis. I apologize for that, it allowed others to assume a hypothesis to continue the argument

An appropriate hypothesis should always, if possible, be the null hypothesis
In this case " The level of ink saturation has no affect to the handling of the cards."

Choosing a hypothesis with 2 possible outcomes is always preferable to one that has more.
In this case
Prove the Hypothesis
"Yes there is no affect to the handling of the cards created from the ink ratio in the cards"
Disprove the hypothesis
"No, there is an affect from the ink ratio on the handling of the cards"

If the affect is positive or negative can be gathered from the data.

As far as the idea of so many minuscule differences that affect handling
Yes this is exactly true and by making the deck at the same time on the same uncut sheet storing them both in the same location and conditions. You are eliminating the majority if not all of those minuscule differences.

The point I am making this entire time is that it's one thing to propose an idea, and then test it to see if it's true. It's a completely different ball game when you come up with an idea, tell everyone it's true, create ratings systems out of them, tell reviewers that they should review based on this idea, and turn it into a real thing when it is anything but.

this is precisely why factual evidence needs to be gathered.

there is absolutely no way to change everyone's mind with an opinion.  It is nigh impossible enough with fact.

This idea was born either out of anecdotal evidence or on a whim. However it was born in gained credence through use and now some people believe it and will continue to believe it no matter how much some people argue strongly against it or poorly for it.

In this case Alex
Your argument against it was poor and left room for a greater discussion/argument that may or may not have solidified the belief in some peoples mind.
You, in the same sentence, gave "factual evidence" in favor of a difference in the handling of cards due to the ink ratio, and then shot it down with your opinion of that fact.

The best example is here:

Now the fact is, if you drench a piece of printer paper in black ink, that paper will feel completely different than an unsaturated one. The difference is almost negligible, but it's there. However, paper is significantly less thick than playing card paste board.

If you truthfully feel that this bias is damaging to sales and a blight on the community you would support the idea of finding proof, not just badger another post with your opinion.

However I feel that this argument exists for argument sake (which is completely valid, especially on a discussion board) 

In such situations one does not really care the outcome of the argument as long as they get the last word.


To address the thoughts of Redtank151

But perhaps a flaw with the experiment is that an person who has experienced black decks before can definitely feel whether a deck is inky or not even when blind folded and gagged. So in their mind they would go *click* this is the inky one therefore its worse or something like that.

I do not see this as a flaw, as feel of a deck is part of the handling. If an expert can truthfully feel the difference between a highly saturated deck and a not highly saturated deck, then there is a difference between the two and the hypothesis is voided.
If they can't and they just believe they can, well then statistically they will chose correctly 50% of the time and the hypothesis will be proven.

To eliminate this possibility of bias altogether, is why I suggested having a large sample of varying experience and talent.

[NathanCanadas]

Anyways, what is a "better handling deck"? To my sister, it's one that isn't too slippery out of the box. To me, it's one that remains slippery forever. Cardists don't mind when the deck sticks together, while magicians like the opposite. So this experiment wouldn't really lead to anything. Just different opinions from different people. It's a good idea but anyways, in 15 minutes, I doubt the deck would be broken down.

[Utterfool]

So this experiment wouldn't really lead to anything. Just different opinions from different people. It's a good idea but anyways, in 15 minutes, I doubt the deck would be broken down.

15minutes ... 15 minutes, that random number I pulled out of my ass as an example is all that you grasped from my post.

Wow
The point is really lost on this crowd.

I suppose i will stop trying to be helpful and or informative.

[Aaron]

The thing about doing an experiment with a hypothesis is that the hypothesis is not true until proven true.

In this case, the hypothesis is that ink:stock ratio negatively impacts a deck of cards when the saturation is high.

There is no evidence to support the case. Most anecdotal evidence supports the opposite.

Even with the experiment UF proposed, the variables are too high to count. We know for a fact that if ink saturation has any effect whatsoever, that effect is extremely minuscule. There are so many things along those lines that can affect handling it's crazy.

Which is why it's absolutely idiotic to rate a deck of cards on something that is barely even a legitimate hypothesis.

The point I am making this entire time is that it's one thing to propose an idea, and then test it to see if it's true. It's a completely different ball game when you come up with an idea, tell everyone it's true, create ratings systems out of them, tell reviewers that they should review based on this idea, and turn it into a real thing when it is anything but.

Think of it like this: There are tons of theories about the universe. One of the cool ones is a multiverse concept. It is literally an idea someone had and goes very little beyond that. At this point in time it is not testable. Do we put this idea into text books? Do we have scientists doing work under the assumption that this idea is the truth?

No.

Because that would be fucking stupid.

:]

Hahaha that  could be the best post I have ever read

[NathanCanadas]

So this experiment wouldn't really lead to anything. Just different opinions from different people. It's a good idea but anyways, in 15 minutes, I doubt the deck would be broken down.

15minutes ... 15 minutes, that random number I pulled out of my ass as an example is all that you grasped from my post.

Wow
The point is really lost on this crowd.

I suppose i will stop trying to be helpful and or informative.

Hey, don't take it in a wrong way. It's a great idea. Someone should do it. But I don't think it would proove to be very efficient since one person's "good" deck may be another one's "bad" deck in terms of handling. That was the point I was making.

[4pm Designer]

[Something that's known for certain: paper quality can vary even within the same print run,

Absolute truth. With the recent experience with my own Grid deck, I've also noticed a change in seperate decks. The first deck I carried with me suddenly became clumpy and wouldn't fan for crap, yet another "identical" deck I began carrying for the exact same amount of time still comes out the box as it did when i first opened it.

As for the 2 finishes, once again absolute truth. When I began production with The Grid and began prepping our next deck I had contacted 2 seperate people from USPCC on numerous occasions about the finishes and got the same reply, only 2 finishes really exist. In their own words "the rest is just marketing"

I think most reviews are becoming obsolete considering if it's a deck from USPCC it's going to handle exactly the same as another deck (with the exception of "magic and smooth" finish) Personally, at this point, reviews should begin focusing on the design aspects of the decks rather than the handling, unless it's a different manufacturer.

As for the Ink to Stock ratio, logically I would assume the amount of ink would matter. However, this isn't your uncle bobs printing service. So I would think the USPCC's technique would no longer effect the stock. Remember, our fingers don't touch the ink, they touch the finish. So maybe it's the durability of the finish that would effect handling, not the ink. Just a thought.

[Aaron]

I have one thing to add, would it not be possible that a White deck if this theory existed could have more ink than a black? Because they are still using white ink on the stock so it would be close to equal in black and white decks.

[Utterfool]

I have one thing to add, would it not be possible that a White deck if this theory existed could have more ink than a black? Because they are still using white ink on the stock so it would be close to equal in black and white decks.

Now if this is a fact.
Then really the whole argument from the beginning is moot, with neither side being correct.
Because this would mean all decks would be completely saturated with ink and have relatively the same ink to card stock ratio.

the new argument that would have to be started, with people taking sides is "is there an affect on handling from using dark inks versus light inks"
and if that is the case then I can jump on the band wagon and say there is definitely an affect " I know without a doubt that red inks (and any color that contains red) handle much worse then blue inks"
In fact I am going to go do a bunch of deck reviews right now touting that theory.

[xela]

So this experiment wouldn't really lead to anything. Just different opinions from different people. It's a good idea but anyways, in 15 minutes, I doubt the deck would be broken down.

15minutes ... 15 minutes, that random number I pulled out of my ass as an example is all that you grasped from my post.

Wow
The point is really lost on this crowd.

I suppose i will stop trying to be helpful and or informative.

I doubt the entire community took away the same thing as Nathan from your post. This isn't a hivemind, but it would be pretty cool if it was.

[Don Boyer]

And yes don you are correct about there is more to this argument between rob and alex beside ink to stock, don't know if that's in this quote or not your posts are so long i don't care to read them again. This is to Rob and Alex. Feelings were hurt, get over it it has been months, lets just keep it about cards and not clashes between you 2 from now on, 

He actually got miffed that I seemed to be arbitrarily siding with Alex and blacklisted me on Facebook. It's become childish at this point - he needs to get over this nonsense and move on, or become irrelevant.


Guys, lacking any real, measurable proof and a means to eliminate other possible influences, you can't say whether or not the amount of ink used on a given stock has any effect.  We don't even have a means by which to MEASURE the amount of ink absorbed by a given stock!


Running around in circles over this is pointless, and trying to use a metric that can't even be measured as a means to evaluate anything is absurd.


That's all I've got left to say on this topic, at least until someone busts out their science degree and professional-grade laboratory and starts testing.

[DeckReview]

Now comes another add on to the ink to stock debate that makes the idea technically true to this extent.

For the sake of everything, assume a black sharpie is used and we're talking USPCC cards

Sharpie Methods, the method of using a permanent marker to color the edges of your deck, does not affect the handling of your playing cards if your deck was already black. The feel is not 100% the same but the handling is very identical to the unsharpied deck. To sum it up for the black decks, additional ink don't do a thing.

Sharpie a white deck though, then the handling is reportedly inferior and that's because of the additional ink. The ink soaking in the edges reportedly makes for bad fans according to CardsRFun, concerning white decks of course.

The reasoning behind this?
Black decks were designed to have ink all over the cards.
White decks have a finish designed for only the ink on the cards.

I'm gonna have an experiment with the UV500 Shadow Masters and the UV500 Blue Masters using the same brand sharpie. They both have the same exact stock and finish so technically the handling for both decks should be impervious to the ink.

We might learn a thing or two, maybe even find out the truth.  Do black UV500 ellusionist's decks really have the same finish as the white UV500 cards?

EDIT
After about 5 minutes of searching for a UV500 Shadow Masters deck, I can say without a doubt that they are very hard to find.
I might do the experiment with the modern black and white arcane decks being of course probably the most ideal decks to test anyways

[xela]

Now comes another add on to the ink to stock debate that makes the idea technically true to this extent.

For the sake of everything, assume a black sharpie is used and we're talking USPCC cards

Sharpie Methods, the method of using a permanent marker to color the edges of your deck, does not affect the handling of your playing cards if your deck was already black. The feel is not 100% the same but the handling is very identical to the unsharpied deck. To sum it up for the black decks, additional ink don't do a thing.

Sharpie a white deck though, then the handling is reportedly inferior and that's because of the additional ink. The ink soaking in the edges reportedly makes for bad fans according to CardsRFun, concerning white decks of course.

The reasoning behind this?
Black decks were designed to have ink all over the cards.
White decks have a finish designed for only the ink on the cards.

I'm gonna have an experiment with the UV500 Shadow Masters and the UV500 Blue Masters using the same brand sharpie. They both have the same exact stock and finish so technically the handling for both decks should be impervious to the ink.

We might learn a thing or two, maybe even find out the truth.  Do black UV500 ellusionist's decks really have the same finish as the white UV500 cards?

EDIT
After about 5 minutes of searching for a UV500 Shadow Masters deck, I can say without a doubt that they are very hard to find.
I might do the experiment with the modern black and white arcane decks being of course probably the most ideal decks to test anyways

UV500 is Cincinnati, and our knowledge of how USPCC worked back then is very, very convoluted at best.

We know exactly what USPCC does in Kentucky. Two coatings: Magic and Air-Cushion. Two stocks: Bicycle and Bee (Aristocrat has been "discontinued" and Bicycle stock is now using the old Aristocrat paper). Then there are Casino grade stocks. Then you can choose textured or smooth cards.

Finishes are not applied to the edges of cards, which is why a tiny drop of water on the surface of a card can be quickly wiped off, while a drop on the edge soaks all the way through and ruins the card.

As for sharpie-ing a deck on the edges, this is easy to test. I don't really trust CardsRfun's opinion on the matter, since his video is years old, based on Cincinnati, and he was reviewing in a time where having facts was next to impossible.

I did just Sharpie a Vortex before writing this post, seems to still handle fine. No idea how it will stand the test of time, though.

I did some Googling, it seems that Sharpies are aqueous based inks, and cannot apply on UV-coating.

UV Coating is a slick, glossy coating applied to the printed paper surface and dried on press with ultraviolet (UV) light. The high gloss surface of UV coating makes it eye catching, and therefore very popular for printing the covers of paperback novels and other print products that are meant to gain immediate attention.

UV Coating is mainly popular among club flyers and other promotional items. It is not suggested to get commercial products or postcards. You cannot write on UV coating, not even with a Sharpie™ Marker.

Either way, this is all Cincinnati talk.