Court Cards: Madison vs Split Spades

[Fred]

Fred do you like the madison rounders deck ?

I think the Rounders is quite an attractive deck (Note the specific use of the word 'attractive'). From a minimalistic design perspective, Rounders is very well put together. There is so much technique involved in minimalistic/abstract work. This is why you often hear people/artists say that abstract art, though 'simple', is one of the hardest to master.There is actual reasoning and artistic justification/technique in placing the two logos exactly where they should be, and exactly how far they are. Too close and the focal point is muddled and balance is dismissed, too far and the eye/our attention would float too much to the edges/corners of the card back. The back seems easy and simple to achieve, but in actual fact there's a lot of artistic norms that one should follow to create such a simple yet aesthetic design. The Madison logo is also, in my opinion, quite attractive. Everything flows wonderfully and the mix of hard and soft (straight and curved) lines balance nicely.

The custom courts are beautiful (I especially like the London chick Madison works with.. I apologise for forgetting her full name). However one criticism that i have is that the deck is incomplete; as not all of the court faces are custom (Jack of Diamonds for example). Even if Madison only has like 9 real friends that he can put on his deck.. i honestly think he shouldve at least chosen someone else for his artist to depict on the remaining courts, instead of using standard USPCC faces. This incompleteness greatly depreciates the artistic value of the deck in my opinion. It's just one of those things that is so 'simple' to fix but is instead ignored.

Overall, I do like the deck. I have one myself and have from time to time admired the courts quite extensively. I hope you didnt ask me whether or not i liked the Rounders so that if i said yes, you would call me a hypocrite for hating on this shitty Anarchy deck. You may see an almost identical back design, but these two decks arent even comparable. It's not even apples to oranges.. it's apples to sloth fecal matter.

I have a very strong personal opinion (Which probably explains my lack of reputation =p). None of my comments are intended to insult anyone or cause any harm. I hope people can objectively comment on their own thoughts instead of being affected by other opinions/subjective perspectives.

Sorry for writing a 'Don' response.
tl:dr, y yes raunders r noice. <3

[volantangel]

As much as I don't like this deck, the response between this and the rounders deck is heaven and earth, sorry I think this deck deserves all the flak, but the rounders and fontaines should as well. Sure the court cards are altered but not in a particularly good way, the look rough and unfinished, especially if you take a db deck and put them next to each other, same idea different execution level. Plus Madison already had his logo before doing the rounders he didn't create one just for it.

To me the greatest and perhaps only significant difference is that the rounders had Madison behind it, and the fontaines had zach mueller, sorry I'm no fanboy and I'm not calling you a hypocrite but really the decks aren't too different, the artistic norms you mentioned aren't lacking from this deck, whether it's copied or not.

[Fred]

As much as I don't like this deck, the response between this and the rounders deck is heaven and earth, sorry I think this deck deserves all the flak, but the rounders and fontaines should as well. Sure the court cards are altered but not in a particularly good way, the look rough and unfinished, especially if you take a db deck and put them next to each other, same idea different execution level. Plus Madison already had his logo before doing the rounders he didn't create one just for it.

To me the greatest and perhaps only significant difference is that the rounders had Madison behind it, and the fontaines had zach mueller, sorry I'm no fanboy and I'm not calling you a hypocrite but really the decks aren't too different, the artistic norms you mentioned aren't lacking from this deck, whether it's copied or not.

Your response assumes i put Fontaines and Rounders on the same level. They are not, at least in my honest opinion. Yes both decks are riding heavily on the creator's fame, (Keep in mind i dislike both Zach and Daniel, Zach's repetitive jokes in expose are heavily overdone and very predictable and I think Daniel's image is completely artificial.. but lets not get into that) but in terms of design, they are also not on the same level. As Alex mentioned before, good minimalistic design also incorporates depth. Though i disagree with him that adding gradient would make this deck better, his point is stil valid in that depth is required for overall completeness. Rounders achieve this by the very distinct contrast between black and white, combined with a deeper shade of red for the pips/courts. Everything fits the theme quite well (though i dislike the jokers.. but oh well you gotta give artists SOME artistic freedom, right? =p). Fontaines on the other hand lacks depth. The back design, being a minimalist myself, i find very attractive. However, all that bullshit Zach spews about purposively keeping the courts standard is just an easy way out to not perfect and complete the deck, as it will sell regardless.

In your comment you imply that DB's decks are on a different execution level. I'm going to assume you don't mean the back design.. because it would be foolish to compare the two as they are completely different in theme and style, and i don't take you as a dumb individual. I assume you're talking about the court cards. I find this humorous because like the Rounders, the DB courts are also incomplete. I have the deck right in front of me (Refer to the 1st picture below). Comparing the custom courts in both decks (Refer to the 2nd picture: Split spades on top, Rounders on bottom); you can see that the Rounders' colour scheme is consistent with the overall theme, whereas the Split Spades are simply using standard colours. Comparing the custom faces, the Rounders win again as the line work is more intricate and look less 'bushy'. This isnt subjective. This is just a general objective observation. I simply cannot grasp how you use the split spades as an example to imply that the Rounders are comparably poorer in execution, wherein the Rounders courts are at worst on par with the Split Spades and arguably even better. Please keep Fontaines out of this. That is not the centre of my argument.

Again, sorry for the long explanation. I'd love to hear what you have to say to this.

[Don Boyer]

I'll say that the Rounders have a more realistic appearance to the faces while the Split Spades have a look to them more reminiscent of the original face designs - they'd practically blend in undetected to the layman.

Now - if you don't mind, this topic is on the Anarchy Casino Black (poor-excuse-of-a-)deck.  Feel free to continue this debate in a new topic, as it no longer has nothing to do with the subject of this one.

Fair is fair - I bust on Sprouts1115 on it when he does this elsewhere... 

[volantangel]

As Don has stated, DB's design of the court faces blend in more, appearing more natural as compared to the rounders. All in all, to me the rounders deck showed no originality at all, easily taking elements from jerrys and wynns combining it with the changing the faces as in Blaines decks. We can disagree on the rounders, you like them, i think they are just meh, but we both hate this deck.

Sorry Don for the off-tracking, i dont think there will be anymore.

[Fred]

As Don has stated, DB's design of the court faces blend in more, appearing more natural as compared to the rounders. All in all, to me the rounders deck showed no originality at all, easily taking elements from jerrys and wynns combining it with the changing the faces as in Blaines decks. We can disagree on the rounders, you like them, i think they are just meh, but we both hate this deck.

Sorry Don for the off-tracking, i dont think there will be anymore.

Are you saying that the Rounders would look better if they retained the standard court colours like te Split Spades? Thats ridiculous. The custom court colours were done for a reason. If you personally like the split spades thats fine (i do as well), but dont go around saying that the execution of the Rounders is subpar simply because they are not your style. The only comparable thig between rounders and split spades are the courts, in which the rounders are at worst, on par with the split spades.

On topic: it'll be interesting to see the custom courts for the Anarchy deck. Does anyone want to bet that the only thing that whll change will be the colours?

[Morpheus]

The custom courts are beautiful (I especially like the London chick Madison works with.. I apologise for forgetting her full name). However one criticism that i have is that the deck is incomplete; as not all of the court faces are custom (Jack of Diamonds for example). Even if Madison only has like 9 real friends that he can put on his deck.. i honestly think he shouldve at least chosen someone else for his artist to depict on the remaining courts, instead of using standard USPCC faces. This incompleteness greatly depreciates the artistic value of the deck in my opinion. It's just one of those things that is so 'simple' to fix but is instead ignored.

Not sure if you are aware, and forgive me if you are but the Jack of Diamonds is actually a tribute to Daniel's son, Eli.(his signature can be seen on the side of the card) I'm not sure how old his son is, but if he is younger it would make sense why he couldn't use a custom face on the card. Now, this is just what I'm presuming about the card, so don't just take my word for it.

[Don Boyer]

The custom courts are beautiful (I especially like the London chick Madison works with.. I apologise for forgetting her full name). However one criticism that i have is that the deck is incomplete; as not all of the court faces are custom (Jack of Diamonds for example). Even if Madison only has like 9 real friends that he can put on his deck.. i honestly think he shouldve at least chosen someone else for his artist to depict on the remaining courts, instead of using standard USPCC faces. This incompleteness greatly depreciates the artistic value of the deck in my opinion. It's just one of those things that is so 'simple' to fix but is instead ignored.

Not sure if you are aware, and forgive me if you are but the Jack of Diamonds is actually a tribute to Daniel's son, Eli.(his signature can be seen on the side of the card) I'm not sure how old his son is, but if he is younger it would make sense why he couldn't use a custom face on the card. Now, this is just what I'm presuming about the card, so don't just take my word for it.

I think there's only one untouched court card in the Madison decks.  It's a Jack, but I guess it's not that Jack.  It's pretty plain to tell - it's the only one with the traditional, thicker line work.  Fine lines were used on the other portraits.

As Don has stated, DB's design of the court faces blend in more, appearing more natural as compared to the rounders. All in all, to me the rounders deck showed no originality at all, easily taking elements from jerrys and wynns combining it with the changing the faces as in Blaines decks. We can disagree on the rounders, you like them, i think they are just meh, but we both hate this deck.

Sorry Don for the off-tracking, i dont think there will be anymore.

Good thing you aren't betting on that!  I just broke it off into a new topic - the break was pretty clean.

[Morpheus]

The custom courts are beautiful (I especially like the London chick Madison works with.. I apologise for forgetting her full name). However one criticism that i have is that the deck is incomplete; as not all of the court faces are custom (Jack of Diamonds for example). Even if Madison only has like 9 real friends that he can put on his deck.. i honestly think he shouldve at least chosen someone else for his artist to depict on the remaining courts, instead of using standard USPCC faces. This incompleteness greatly depreciates the artistic value of the deck in my opinion. It's just one of those things that is so 'simple' to fix but is instead ignored.

Not sure if you are aware, and forgive me if you are but the Jack of Diamonds is actually a tribute to Daniel's son, Eli.(his signature can be seen on the side of the card) I'm not sure how old his son is, but if he is younger it would make sense why he couldn't use a custom face on the card. Now, this is just what I'm presuming about the card, so don't just take my word for it.

I think there's only one untouched court card in the Madison decks.  It's a Jack, but I guess it's not that Jack.  It's pretty plain to tell - it's the only one with the traditional, thicker line work.  Fine lines were used on the other portraits.

You sure about that? Take another look at the deck.

[Don Boyer]

The custom courts are beautiful (I especially like the London chick Madison works with.. I apologise for forgetting her full name). However one criticism that i have is that the deck is incomplete; as not all of the court faces are custom (Jack of Diamonds for example). Even if Madison only has like 9 real friends that he can put on his deck.. i honestly think he shouldve at least chosen someone else for his artist to depict on the remaining courts, instead of using standard USPCC faces. This incompleteness greatly depreciates the artistic value of the deck in my opinion. It's just one of those things that is so 'simple' to fix but is instead ignored.

Not sure if you are aware, and forgive me if you are but the Jack of Diamonds is actually a tribute to Daniel's son, Eli.(his signature can be seen on the side of the card) I'm not sure how old his son is, but if he is younger it would make sense why he couldn't use a custom face on the card. Now, this is just what I'm presuming about the card, so don't just take my word for it.

I think there's only one untouched court card in the Madison decks.  It's a Jack, but I guess it's not that Jack.  It's pretty plain to tell - it's the only one with the traditional, thicker line work.  Fine lines were used on the other portraits.

You sure about that? Take another look at the deck.

OK, I just did.  The Jack of Diamonds IS the one with an unaltered face.  There is that signature along the side, true, and it does appear to say "Eli", but the actual face is the same as a traditional USPC Jack of Diamonds.  I guess I should have been clearer about the term "untouched" - I was referring to the portrait faces, not the rest of the outfit.

[Card Player]

I think there's only one untouched court card in the Madison decks.  It's a Jack, but I guess it's not that Jack.  It's pretty plain to tell - it's the only one with the traditional, thicker line work.  Fine lines were used on the other portraits.

I only know this because Madison explained it in one of the Revelations videos. The Madison Rounders Jack of Diamonds does not use a custom face because it represents his child. Madison did not want to use a child's face on a court card so his child's name is written on a normal JoD. The Queen of Diamonds is his Wife. I believe they changed that JoD on the Dealers deck though. We need to be more specific which Madison court cards we are talking about.

[Nurul]

To my knowledge, when the rounders deck was designed, his son (Eli) was a few weeks old. It seems fitting to have DM as the KoD, his wife as the QoD and his son as the JoD