Author (Read 151134 times)

skinny · « **Reply #125 on:** September 08, 2015, 08:20:56 PM »

The extraordinary temptation to open my deck has now (mostly) subsided. Thank you for that!

smithesque · « **Reply #126 on:** September 08, 2015, 08:30:17 PM »

Hello! I was wondering if the back found on this de luxe deck:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-PLAYING-CARDS-DE-LUXE-No-142-NEW-YORK-CONSOLIDATED-CARD-CO-U-S-A-/201422896154?hash=item2ee5bd7c1a

can be found on any other decks other than these?

Thanks!

Don Boyer · « **Reply #127 on:** September 09, 2015, 12:28:35 AM »

Quote from: smithesque on September 08, 2015, 08:30:17 PM

Hello! I was wondering if the back found on this de luxe deck:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-PLAYING-CARDS-DE-LUXE-No-142-NEW-YORK-CONSOLIDATED-CARD-CO-U-S-A-/201422896154?hash=item2ee5bd7c1a

can be found on any other decks other than these?

Thanks!

As eBay images have a habit of vanishing after a certain number of months after the auction/sale ends, I thought it prudent to download the images and upload them here...

smithesque · « **Reply #128 on:** September 09, 2015, 03:55:58 PM »

Thanks for posting the downloads!

52plusjoker · « **Reply #129 on:** September 18, 2015, 11:30:24 AM »

Quote from: smithesque on September 08, 2015, 08:30:17 PM

Hello! I was wondering if the back found on this de luxe deck:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-PLAYING-CARDS-DE-LUXE-No-142-NEW-YORK-CONSOLIDATED-CARD-CO-U-S-A-/201422896154?hash=item2ee5bd7c1a

can be found on any other decks other than these?

Thanks!

I believe that back was also used for the Triton #42 brand

Slowhand · « **Reply #130 on:** September 18, 2015, 12:59:44 PM »

Hey Mista T. you are correct sir!... i've had that back on a deck of Triton #42's... prefer the great animal backs that they had on them though...and the Indian chief too.. ;-)

torcams · « **Reply #131 on:** September 18, 2015, 09:26:29 PM »

Hello Experts!

I was wondering if anyone could shed any light on an observation that I made on two seemingly identical decks of souvenir playing cards. The specific question is: Did USPCC change their cardstock/varnish process between 1901 and 1902?

I was comparing two decks of S28 Hawaiian Souvenir playing cards, both the early type with Type A black and white images. Deck A has a tax stamp of 8-8-01. Deck B has a tax stamp dated 6-X-1902 (couldn't discern the day). Deck A was noticably thicker cardstock and the cards had a much "slicker, slippery" feel against each other. I was wondering if the thicker deck was such due to usage/exposure, but I noticed that the slip cover case was also thicker for deck A. Also both decks are Near Mint+ having likely never seen a card game, only lightly handled.

Deck A - 1901
Thicker stock
Shinier/Slipperier
More Sepia-toned photos

Deck B - 1902
Thinner stock
Less slippery
More B&W-toned photos

Any insight would be appreciated, thanks!

Don Boyer · « **Reply #132 on:** September 19, 2015, 06:56:37 AM »

Quote from: torcams on September 18, 2015, 09:26:29 PM

Hello Experts!

I was wondering if anyone could shed any light on an observation that I made on two seemingly identical decks of souvenir playing cards. The specific question is: Did USPCC change their cardstock/varnish process between 1901 and 1902?

I was comparing two decks of S28 Hawaiian Souvenir playing cards, both the early type with Type A black and white images. Deck A has a tax stamp of 8-8-01. Deck B has a tax stamp dated 6-X-1902 (couldn't discern the day). Deck A was noticably thicker cardstock and the cards had a much "slicker, slippery" feel against each other. I was wondering if the thicker deck was such due to usage/exposure, but I noticed that the slip cover case was also thicker for deck A. Also both decks are Near Mint+ having likely never seen a card game, only lightly handled.

Deck A - 1901
Thicker stock
Shinier/Slipperier
More Sepia-toned photos

Deck B - 1902
Thinner stock
Less slippery
More B&W-toned photos

Any insight would be appreciated, thanks!

Call this an educated guess. I think the answer would have to be that yes, they made some kind of change between the first and second decks. It's not necessarily that they changed their whole process, but that they changed what was being offered for that particular deck. Odds are, they were offering a variety of stocks, coatings and finishes - probably more than what's being offered now, that's for sure!

It's believed that a lot of the historic finish names, such as Linoid, Cambric, etc. were at one time completely different from each other, but these days, it's all just different names for "embossed," that being one of the two choices available, the other being "smooth." Stock-wise, it's known that USPC used to offer a variety of different stocks in various thicknesses and firmnesses - today, they offer exactly two, Bicycle and Bee Casino, and that's it. Adding insult to injury, they come in a range of thicknesses, you don't get to chose the precise thickness and the ranges actually overlap, so a thick Bicycle stock deck can be thicker than a thin Bee Casino stock deck. This information comes to me from someone who's done a lot of business with USPC in recent history, though not as much presently - he left his firm for another, but that original firm has largely switched to a different manufacturer anyway.

The present state of affairs isn't entirely USPC's fault - I'm told that around the same time the company opened the new plant in Erlanger, US regulations went into effect requiring higher post-consumer recycled content in paper stocks as well as the use of petrochemical-free inks and coatings. They now use vegetable-dye inks and starch-based varnishes.

52plusjoker · « **Reply #133 on:** September 19, 2015, 10:33:14 AM »

I would not be surprised if you found another 1901 style deck with the same stock and finish as the 1902. I suspect, like Don, that a number of finishes were available and were used somewhat interchangeably.

torcams · « **Reply #134 on:** September 20, 2015, 12:00:37 AM »

Thanks guys, great info!!

Don Boyer · « **Reply #135 on:** September 20, 2015, 01:27:51 AM »

Quote from: torcams on September 20, 2015, 12:00:37 AM

Thanks guys, great info!!

It could even be a situation not entirely dissimilar to what CARC offered, back when they were commissioning USPC to make "Erdnase" series Bee decks and Professional Bicycle decks for them. Most of the decks they offered were made available in two finishes - Cambric (in the case of Bicycles, "Air Cushion") and Ivory. The only exception I'm aware of was the "Expert at the Card Table" deck, and I'm not completely certain that was a CARC-commissioned project, though I think it was. It only came in a textured finished, which I don't think was named on the box.

This vintage deck of yours might have been offered in more than one stock, more than one finish, more than one level of quality. It was entirely common for USPC to offer varying levels of quality for some of their decks, with gilding often being used as a means to make a moderate-to-high quality deck cost even more at retail. It allowed them to capture the gamut of market segments, from well-to-do aristocrats playing a high-stakes game of cribbage all the way down to the kids collecting deposit bottles to save money for a deck to play Go Fish and every financial strata in-between. It was that kind of broad market coverage (combined with an aggressive pattern of mergers and acquisitions) that allowed them to so thoroughly dominate the US market, I believe, within a short time of the company opening its doors and selling its first deck.

Cryptocard27 · « **Reply #136 on:** September 26, 2015, 07:36:46 PM »

Please, have you already seen this lithograph trade card made by the N.Y Consolidated Card Company's? I found it on the web and apparently, it features politicians. The name of the persons shown are, left to right: James G. Blaine, Benjamin Harrison, Levi Morton, Allen G. Thurman, Grover Cleveland, unknown. Would somebody have a copy or more information about this trade card? Probably dates from 1888. Thanks in advance.
Crypto

tstark · « **Reply #137 on:** October 08, 2015, 10:33:50 AM »

I have a question about the Tally Ho playing cards. I have some sealed decks that are barcoded and some that are not. It is my understanding that the non-perforated sticker seals were adopted in the mid-70s and the barcode in the early 80s. My non-barcoded decks have the non-perforated seal so my guesstimate is that these were made/sold in the time between 1976 and approx. 1982. Can anyone confirm this? Thank you, Craig

andrew daugherty · « **Reply #138 on:** October 09, 2015, 01:09:37 AM »

That is a good estimate, Craig.

tstark · « **Reply #139 on:** October 09, 2015, 02:25:14 AM »

Thank you very much Andrew, I appreciate the help. Take care, Craig

Cryptocard27 · « **Reply #140 on:** October 11, 2015, 01:16:11 PM »

Hi everybody!

I found recently a Dougherty pricelist dated 1869 and the decks numbered on this list are exactly the same as those of the L. I. Cohen pricelist in the Hochman Supplement & Price Guide p. 6. Do you know if there is an error concerning the manufacturer for one of the two list or if the decks or a part of the stock of Lewis Cohen were acquired by Andrew Dougherty at the time of his death?

Thank you,
Crypto

mitch442 · « **Reply #141 on:** December 09, 2015, 04:37:01 PM »

Hi, all. I could use some help dating a Bulldog Squeezer Deck.

It has the USPCC seal. The AOS is a Squeezers ace and has Y 2629 on the bottom.
It has the pair of Tally Ho jokers.

Also, have Bulldog Squeezers been in constant production? Did it stop and start again? Fascinated by the history of this card design.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Don Boyer · « **Reply #142 on:** December 10, 2015, 12:22:24 AM »

OK, the USPC seal immediately says "1965 or later." The fact that it's a sticker means "mid-1980s or later." Combine that with the "Y" in the Ace of Spades code and your deck was printed in 1998 - it's about 17 years old, a few years shy of being considered vintage. (The accepted threshold here is a minimum of 20 years old for vintage.)

I'm pretty sure the Bulldog Squeezers were stopped in the early 2000s and I know they were reprinted in 2010 at the Erlanger factory. It's a similar pattern as occurred with the Angel Back Squeezers and USPC Steamboats (not counting any prints ordered by third parties like Dan and Dave, of course).

The reprint Bulldogs have the same exact Joker designs found in a modern Tally Ho deck, including the Guarantee Joker.

mitch442 · « **Reply #143 on:** December 10, 2015, 03:24:58 AM »

Thanks, Don. Exactly the answer I was looking for.

Don Boyer · « **Reply #144 on:** December 10, 2015, 08:49:22 PM »

It's actually kind of interesting, when you think of the symbolism of the deck, that the jokers are Tally Ho while the Ace of Spades has bees in the design, symbolic of the Bee brand - many of the early Bee decks were also "co-branded" as Squeezers. Combine that with the imagery on the card back of "Squeezer" and "Trip" each tied to their homes/doghouses, representing the collusion between two companies, A. Doughtery and NY Consolidated, to divide a market between them - this is the kind of deck that would never have been made if this sort of thing happened today. It would have been tantamount to waving evidence of illegal corporate practices in the world's face and taunting about it! It was no more legal then than it is now, but apparently no one in the government decided to call them on it - and in the end, both companies, rather than being colluding competitors, ended up absorbed into a single near-monopoly...

Queen of Spades · « **Reply #145 on:** January 21, 2016, 09:32:02 PM »

Can Anybody Tell What is The Years of this Aladdin Playing Card ?

The Box matches 1910 version
first picture is the face of the box , second picture is the bottom of the box and all the other side are same (which wrote 1001 Aladdin)

The aces was also 1910 because it is N
The Joker was also match the 1910 .

This is the part which confuse me.

The printing of this playing card is not from 1910
And it also come with Guarantee Joker .

Thank you everyone !

andrew daugherty · « **Reply #146 on:** January 21, 2016, 11:34:30 PM »

The font on the ace of spades is way too modern for 1910. Also, the court cards are the modern USPC faces. I would put the N date code as possibly 1990-1991. That was also the time when the face cards often were printed with slightly faded colors, as your image may show. The blues fade into a purplish hue. Collectors, look at your early 90s USPC decks, and you'll see how the colors are not as rich as decks before or after.

One more clue. If the box is original to the deck, the zip code puts the deck after 1965. Lack of bar code is interesting, though.

Sometimes the various date code charts are not 100 percent correct. Occasionally one must make an educated guess based on other clues. Definitely not 1910. Font, combined with faded blue says early 90s.

Queen of Spades · « **Reply #147 on:** January 21, 2016, 11:53:55 PM »

I am really appreciated your reply ! Yes , I know the code of the USPCC is not always right , it has a lot of exceptions !

The only thing is why the box is so much different with the deck . Pre-barcode box is before 1975 .

Besides that , if 1990-1991 is related to "N" but why the reference list of the USPCC didn't write it down ? Is it means that is only a less amount of decks were printed in 1990-1991 with N code ?

Don Boyer · « **Reply #148 on:** January 22, 2016, 06:33:12 AM »

I think the estimate is correct - if these are vintage, they're only barely so.

The only known, charted uses of the "N" in the date code are from 1910 and 2011 - but that assumes USPC is a stickler for following their own codes, which we know they aren't. Anyway, a deck from 2011 would also have the four-digit prefix indicating the week and last two digits of the year of manufacture as well as having an Erlanger, Kentucky address.

UPC (Universal Product Code) barcodes may have been around since the late '60s, but they didn't see wide use until the early '70s and didn't appear on USPC playing cards until the '80s or so. However, this being a non-domestic product for USPC, it could very well have been made without a bar code. Aladdins are marketed by USPC for exclusive sale in Singapore, although due to demand outside that country they do see distribution elsewhere. Even today, many decks made by USPC are sold without UPC barcodes, though mostly for third-party orders. Many believe they'll be gradually phased out and replaced with more data-rich, data-redundant formats like the QR code - you can damage a certain percentage of a QR code (based on size and density) and the code remains completely readable, whereas a damaged UPC barcode is unreadable if any of the center bars are completely gone or otherwise obscured.

Sticker seals as opposed to moisture-activated stamp seals didn't see use until sometime in the '80s. If you look closely at the glue residue where the seal fell off or was removed, you can see a clearly-defined edge along the sides - the stamp seals had perforated edges, thus their glue residue didn't leave such a straight line when the seal was removed or fell off. This deck was sealed with a sticker, so it really could not be older than circa 1985 or so - 1990 or 1991 sound like good educated guesses based on other evidence provided.

I'm merging this topic with the one on "Ask the Experts" - it's a better fit there.

Queen of Spades · « **Reply #149 on:** January 23, 2016, 11:52:20 PM »

Thank Don for your information , I would like to have more information about this deck . Thank everyone for your effort !