As a side note, I have been theorizing that different runs of card prints might have different feels, even for the same deck. Haven't had an opportunity to confirm it yet. I wonder if the people at USPCC are putting out different feeling card stocks without realizing it, due to the quality of pulp (what forest it came from) they happen to be using at that time. I know they offer different stock selections.... like casino grade stock, etc..... but I wonder how much variation they might get on the same stock for different print runs.... unwittingly...
I'll tell you right now - yes, there can be inconsistencies in stock from one print run to the next, and sometimes even in the same print run. There's many, many factors that can affect the end result quality of the stock, including some that USPC has zero control over. Overall stock quality is slowly falling as more and more paper is being created with increasing percentages of recycled content, meaning shorter fibers and paper that isn't as strong. Many companies in businesses that deal heavily in paper are looking for viable alternatives to using any wood content at all in their paper, instead using a quickly and cheaply renewable source. Cotton, linen, plastic, hemp, etc. - all are being experimented with to create paper that isn't expensive and has the look and feel of quality wood-pulp stocks.
Some factors in USPC's control would include the amount of pressure used to create the pasteboard, the humidity at which the paper is stored before printing (they use humidity-controlled storage spaces), how the printed paper is cured, the homogeneity of the laminate before it's applied, etc. They do what they can to maintain a consistent stock, but it seems to be more art than science. The standard used to measure their two typically-available stocks is thickness, and it's not a fixed thickness but a range of thicknesses - it's not impossible for a deck to be thicker or thinner than another within a print run, yet still meet the standard for Bicycle or Bee Casino stock.
Wow. That's really interesting to know.... I wish they could standardize their process even more and subdivide their stocks into more precise grades so you could know exactly what stock quality you were going to get. I realize this may seem a little persnickety, but sometimes I can feel a real difference between different decks that were both "Bee Casino" stock.
Or at least label the deck run with a number, perhaps identifying who the manager was overseeing that print run. (It could be a code printed on the box that you can look up online on USPCC's website to see more details about that run, and when it occurred.) It would be cool to see if a pattern emerged where a certain employee working there ends up producing a higher quality (subjective I know) or at least more popular card stock .... based off his choices on executing the print run.... regarding all those variables you mentioned (paper curing process, storage humidity, etc.).
Then a person could more accurately recommend a certain print run for say, Artifice decks, to other cardists. They would have confidence knowing what quality they were going to get if they were to buy Artifice decks from that same print run number.
Also, regarding the paper fibers being used.... I would rather pay more for a deck of cards that has more actual wood fibers in it.... IF that improves the handling.
Funny review.
I like the custom pips on this deck. I don't mind the courts, they're different.
"much anticipated side design" XD lol
You said these are middle of the road in terms of handling - off the top of your head, which decks out there are top of the line for handling?
Some of my favorites for handling are the original (not reprinted) smoke & mirrors cards (i played around with the last three versions... blue, red, green) and the magic con 2012 cards. For an especially substantial card stock I like the Green Artifice v2 (with white borders)... at least at the time I bought the green artifice v2 they had a great stock, and I find it is easier to get nice fans and le paul spreads out of them. I was also pretty happy with the way the Ultimate deck handles by Dan and Dave.... only problem is the price on that one.
Thanks for the answer!
I JUST ordered an Ultimate deck from D&D (along with the october fulton's) and now thanks to you I'm looking forward to it EVEN MORE. 
.
Funny, I remember hearing somewhere that the magic con V1 cards handled poorly... come to think of it is the magic con 2012 the v2 version with the star on the tuck?
Yeah I have some artifice V2 decks and I noticed the stock was much thicker and "cardboardier (?if that's even a word)" than the artifice purple I have.
I can't do a LePaul Spread, it's a cool flourish that I wish I knew - any tips for where to learn it/who teaches it best/well?
I'm no expert, but from my memory, the monarch deck handles amazingly. There are other decks I've handled that were amazing too but the Monarch is the one I remember at the moment.
@Don:
Wow that answer :| ... *bow down to the omnipotence*
Yes, the magic con 2012 decks have a star on them and have purplish/bluish colors. I really like their appearance; the court cards have some of that same color pattern for the fill on their lines instead of being solid. It's a cool effect. Maybe it's just because purple is my favorite color. Also pips are black and pink. (I've never tried the magic con V1 deck.)
Yeah those v2 artifice decks are thick. If you check out deckreview's channel on youtube.... search near the bottom of his videos. He has a tutorial on the Le Paul Spread. I might do a tutorial eventually.... but my Le Paul spread has never approached the ability he demonstrates.
I'll have to check out the monarchs. I have some sitting around but I haven't examined them in much detail yet. Too much to do, too little time....
(Read 2141 times)
