Concentric Deck

[Faume]

Hello!

I have been lurking around the forum for a bit while I've been designing this deck, and I'm to the point now where I need some feedback from a larger group. To this point I have consulted with a few friends, but now I'm hoping to get some more opinions.

The idea that sparked this deck came from doodling during a boring meeting at work. I drew the basic shapes of the pips, and continued to add layers of concentric shapes. I noticed that the pips could each be broken down further to even more basic shapes, and I could create each pip from just circles and diamonds.

I had the idea to use concentric shapes to represent the value of the card. Single shapes for Aces, two concentric shapes for 2's, six concentric shapes for 6's, etc.

This provides a quick, visual shorthand indicating the value of the card. Now I don't expect someone using the deck to count the concentric shapes each time - that isn't the point. I am not leaving off indices. I am simply using this pip design to reinforce the values.

My court designs retain many of the classic elements of the courts (one-eyed Jacks, suicide King, etc), but use only two colors - The red or black of the suit plus a color unique to each suit. The thick, bold lines and shapes of the courts provide a contrast to the thin, delicate lines that make up the pips.

The number cards use a custom pip layout that has the pips follow three concentric circles radiating from the center. The layout is the same for each suit.

The pip for the Joker is a four point star in the design language I've established throughout the deck.

I appreciate all feedback and constructive criticism!

!!! Attached images have been updated 03 August 2014 !!!

Original images from this topic can still be found at: http://alphavbeta.net/sample.html

[Faume]

Some more images.

!!! Attached images have been updated 03 August 2014 !!!

Earlier images from this topic can still be found at: http://alphavbeta.net/sample.html

[sprouts1115]

First impressions, If you want to make the suit index different for each card that is fine. I have not seen that before.  Just make the Hearts and Diamonds at least 50% red while the Clubs and Spades make them 50% black. I notice your going with a color scheme of Red and Gold for Heats, Red and Blue for Diamonds. Black and Green for Clubs and Black and Indigo for Spades.  That is also fine.   Would like to see more....   

[Afrank8]

I actually quite like what you've done with the pips, but the back design is a bit mental. I would prefer it a bit toned down, would like to see more.

[Faume]

Thanks for the feedback! I understand what you mean about making sure each pip is 50% red or black. I haven't revised the court card pips in a while. I'll try to add some more black and red to them respectively. The number cards are all at least 50% red or black (though the 10's are close).

You're both asking to see more - what more do you want to see? Are all my images not showing? I've posted all courts and aces, backs, tuck box, jokers, and 2-10 from a variety of suits. I could post the complete 2-10 from all suits if you'd like. I'll try to put those together to post for tomorrow (the designs are already complete, just need to create some .pngs).

Afrank8, how would you suggest toning down the backs? Maybe make the lines a bit less heavy? Or maybe make the shapes bigger so there are less layers? I think part of the problem may just be the way that image looks on this site. I've had a sample printed of nearly an identical design, and in hand it doesn't look quite so busy. It looks like most patterned backs.

If for some reason all the images I've posted here aren't showing, you can also see them here: http://alphavbeta.net/sample.html

[Don Boyer]

Thanks for the feedback! I understand what you mean about making sure each pip is 50% red or black. I haven't revised the court card pips in a while. I'll try to add some more black and red to them respectively. The number cards are all at least 50% red or black (though the 10's are close).

You're both asking to see more - what more do you want to see? Are all my images not showing? I've posted all courts and aces, backs, tuck box, jokers, and 2-10 from a variety of suits. I could post the complete 2-10 from all suits if you'd like. I'll try to put those together to post for tomorrow (the designs are already complete, just need to create some .pngs).

Afrank8, how would you suggest toning down the backs? Maybe make the lines a bit less heavy? Or maybe make the shapes bigger so there are less layers? I think part of the problem may just be the way that image looks on this site. I've had a sample printed of nearly an identical design, and in hand it doesn't look quite so busy. It looks like most patterned backs.

If for some reason all the images I've posted here aren't showing, you can also see them here: http://alphavbeta.net/sample.html

Hello!  Welcome to the Discourse.

My suggestions:

• Remove the pips from the joker.  The colors used are off-putting and the center design alone is enough to convey the design theme.  Plus it's better to leave pips off of a card that traditionally has none - it reduces the chance of some fool who didn't look closely from confusing the joker with something of a different value having a suit.
• Your back design is indeed busy - the tiny size can give one a headache.  Take a Bee playing card with the standard "Diamond Back" design.  Going vertically, you can count from top to bottom and find eight pattern repetitions from end to end.  Your deck would look better with the same number, as measured from top to bottom in a straight line along the shortest available diameter.  On the plus side, a pattern such as yours is likely to create an "optical illusion" effect when the cards are spread, making it difficult to spot where one card ends and another begins.  Card sharps and magicians like to use designs like that for hiding certain bits of sleight of hand better!
• If you look at the indices in a standard pack of cards, you'll see something interesting - the value is generally twice as long as the suit pip, and both are of equal width.  Even with the letters chosen, unique changes were made to allow this - many numerals and most letters have serifs on them to make them wider if they were narrow, but the "10" is little more than a stick next to an oval, allowing the two numerals to occupy the same space as one does on the other cards.  This standard index style evolved because it was the easiest for card players to work with and recognize.  I would reduce the size of the index pips and play with the width (and for the "10", the kerning) to have your indices conform to that standard.  Additionally, I'd recommend using the pip in the Ace indices for all of the cards of the same suit - it's the simplest design of all of them, and indices of all things on a card really need to be standard in order to improve functionality.
• Speaking of pips...  Your diamond is fine, but the remaining three too closely resemble each other.  I recommend giving the spade and club a more distinct "base" at the bottom of the pip, and perhaps even separate the three lobes of the club, similar to a Parisian deck, to give it more visual distinction from the spade.  I've provided two examples in the images below.  One more closely resembles an International standard deck while the other is certainly more distinct as a Parisian standard deck.  Note that the second image labeled "clubs2.jpg" looks more like a carefully trimmed piece of topiary - you need not go to that extreme, but in the present design, the overlapping circles of your club make it too similar to the spade.

I hope you find these suggestions useful.

[Will W.]

I like the theme, I even like the color variations but I do agree with Don about the pips on the jokers... They look too much like a jack.  I like the design of the back real well... it is busy but it looks good fanned out.  JMO

[Afrank8]

Sorry if I wasn't clear when I said I wanted to see more, what I meant by that was seeing more development in the design and the stages it goes through to the end result.

[Faume]

Thanks for the feedback everyone! I really appreciate it.

I understand what you mean about the Joker. I think it's a good suggestion. I have some more revision to do to the deck as a whole, and plan to make a couple other minor changes to the Joker design before I post a revision.
I've tried a couple different scales for the back design. I think I prefer the first one I've posted here, but I'd be interested to hear what those who found the first design too busy think.
Your notes about the index make perfect sense. It's amazing how sometimes you look at something forever and overlook such a significant design element. I will definitely adjust the index to that standard, but I want to nail down the pips before I get around to adjusting the card designs as a whole.
I had been considering using the Ace indices for all the cards. I was worried the existing designs were made of lines too thin and close together to be printed, though I was hopeful. USPCC confirmed that they might cause problems, so I plan to switch to using the Ace pips as you've suggested.
I have adjusted the design of my pips to maintain my design intent while further differentiating each pip as suggested. I've posted some process images below for some feedback before I go through adjusting the full set and mocking up complete cards. Let me know what you think.

Thanks!

EDIT: I had some technical difficulties and my attachments didn't seem to work.

I've added the images here: http://alphavbeta.net/sample.html

[Don Boyer]

Technical difficulties, indeed.  I had to go in using a back-door method just to read your posts!  With a little editing, I was able to make the topic visible again - it must have had something to do with the image files.  How big are they?

Thanks for the feedback everyone! I really appreciate it.

• I understand what you mean about the Joker. I think it's a good suggestion. I have some more revision to do to the deck as a whole, and plan to make a couple other minor changes to the Joker design before I post a revision.
• I've tried a couple different scales for the back design. I think I prefer the first one I've posted here, but I'd be interested to hear what those who found the first design too busy think.
• Your notes about the index make perfect sense. It's amazing how sometimes you look at something forever and overlook such a significant design element. I will definitely adjust the index to that standard, but I want to nail down the pips before I get around to adjusting the card designs as a whole.
• I had been considering using the Ace indices for all the cards. I was worried the existing designs were made of lines too thin and close together to be printed, though I was hopeful. USPCC confirmed that they might cause problems, so I plan to switch to using the Ace pips as you've suggested.
• I have adjusted the design of my pips to maintain my design intent while further differentiating each pip as suggested. I've posted some process images below for some feedback before I go through adjusting the full set and mocking up complete cards. Let me know what you think.

Thanks!

You know what I felt regarding the back design scale.  Take a Bee Diamond Back playing card from any drug store or other shop that sells them.  Hold a straight-edge over the card aligned vertically and line it up so it meets with the points of one row of diamonds.  Counting from top to bottom, you'll find it's a total of eight.  Larger than that, you might not get the cool illusory effect of printing a small, repetitive pattern into the bleed.  Make it too small and it becomes a bit hard on the eyes to look at - especially older eyes like mine!

What you said about USPC and detail work is very, VERY true.  It's not like churning copies off the ol' laser printer - offset presses are large, messy things, capable of fine details only to a certain point - a point that computer-aided graphics can easily exceed.  In cases of low contrast, the end result is even worse.  I've seen a few decks that looked gorgeous on the computer screen when designed but turned out to be a disappointing, muddy mess after the print job was finished - in most of those cases, there was a lot of dark in the image, not enough light, and it's like trying to play sudoku on paper in a dark, sealed room.  It's not entirely impossible that much of what you drew in the pips will become unrecognizable at the level of detail that USPC prints, certainly in the index pips where the detail is made even finer due to the smaller scale.  Your primary pips should be fine - but if you're concerned, you can have other companies create a prototype deck for you or wait to see a proof sheet from USPC (don't get a prototype deck from USPC - it's very expensive and other companies will do it for a few hundred bucks less).  If it's a problem, simply fill in the index pips - same general shape, no internal line work - and enlarge your pips to let the detail show better.

[Faume]

I appreciate all the feedback I've received so far! I have just updated all of the images attached to the earlier posts with the latest versions. If you'd like to refer to the earlier designs for reference, those images are still posted here: http://alphavbeta.net/sample.html

I have increased the size of the index relative to the size of the corner pips and adjusted the width and height of each to be closer to the standard Don described I may still look at using a different font or modifying this one more heavily. I am not crazy about the J or Q.

I have used a simpler design for the corner pips of each card which is similar to the old corner pip for the Aces. Throughout the deck I have reduced the level of fine detail that would have been difficult or impossible to accurately print.

I have modified my Heart, Spade, and Club pip designs to make them more distinct.

I've enlarged the pips on the number cards and played with the line thickness to achieve the maximum possible legibility between the lines. I had a sample of an earlier version of this design printed by MPC and the main pips came out okay despite working from PNGs as they do. I believe the changes I've made should improve the end product even more.

I have increased the size of the shapes in the back design to hopefully make it easier on old eyes. :-)

Let me know what you think! I'm particularly looking for some feedback on the courts as no one has mentioned them yet. Thanks!

[Don Boyer]

The courts are fine.  Some will miss the big pip next to the head - but so what.  This was done with the Magic-Con 2013 deck and almost everyone thought that looked great.

The pips are much more distinctive, even though the changes are subtle.

Regarding the J and the Q - perhaps it has something to do with the italicized style you're using.  Try making indices without italics and compare them; you might like your typeface better after you do that.

Take a good look at the indices in a standard playing card deck.  Each character has - or doesn't have - serif marks in order to keep the width of the index the same throughout.  It's not a standard typeface taken off the shelf - it's custom, in order to maintain that width.  The only time you'd ever see those characters together like that in graphic arts would be if someone was imitating or replicating card indices.

[Faume]

Once again I have updated the images in my first two posts. I have chosen a new font for my indices, made some subtle changes to the courts, and revised my tuck box design.

One item I have not brought up here before is the one way back. You can see two variants of the back here: the 1st image attached to this post is a one way back, the second is two way. I believe the one way is subtle enough that it won't interfere with normal game play, but it could be useful for certain tricks.

If you haven't spotted the one way yet, if you draw a line from the center up, you'll see the line always intersects the center of a shape. If draw down, you'll see that in two instances it goes between shapes. I'm curious how you guys feel about this type of one way back. Should I eliminate one of the one way rings? Should I use a different ring as the one way ring?

[Don Boyer]

Once again I have updated the images in my first two posts. I have chosen a new font for my indices, made some subtle changes to the courts, and revised my tuck box design.

One item I have not brought up here before is the one way back. You can see two variants of the back here: the 1st image attached to this post is a one way back, the second is two way. I believe the one way is subtle enough that it won't interfere with normal game play, but it could be useful for certain tricks.

If you haven't spotted the one way yet, if you draw a line from the center up, you'll see the line always intersects the center of a shape. If draw down, you'll see that in two instances it goes between shapes. I'm curious how you guys feel about this type of one way back. Should I eliminate one of the one way rings? Should I use a different ring as the one way ring?

I have news for you - even if you use a two-way back, inaccuracies in cutting will almost certainly render the design one-way anyway!  The difference practically requires a magnifying glass, so it's not one that would be strongly useful in magic or card cheating.

Change the indices of the jokers.  When I look at them, I think I'm seeing a Jack of Diamonds, albeit with an out-of-place design.  The added serifs on the "J" when compared with the "J" on the Jacks don't help with this type of confusion.  Either show just the symbol (preferred) or just the "J", not both.  If you use "J", consider using "JOKER" or even just "JKR" to make it really clear that it's not a Jack.

Best thing I can think of as an alternative joker design - take the center and a few rings out from the back design and make THAT the joker design, with the center circle as your index marker.  If you want the jokers to be distinctive from each other, make the second one with red and black areas switched with each other.

[Faume]

I have been working on some new back designs based on feedback from here and other places. So far I have been working with alternate versions of the existing design.

I have abandoned the one-way ideas. I think you hit the nail on the head Don - too subtle to be useful. It may possibly just be annoying to those who do notice it.

In general I'm trying to make the back design somewhat less busy. The attached images are representative of four of the most solid of the twenty or so variations I've designed over the last couple days. I've reduced the three concentric shapes to a single, solid shape. Through variations in color, size, line thickness, and cropping I've created these variations. I think they all (to different degrees) accomplish the goal of being less busy. Additionally, they more closely follow the way the direction of the overall design philosophy of the deck has evolved.

[Will W.]

The second revamped back is my favorite although I do like the crisp white edges of the last one.  Not much into the design and process therein but I do know what looks good to me as an avid collector so take my opinion for what it's worth.  That of an average collector, if you please. 

[Faume]

The second revamped back is my favorite although I do like the crisp white edges of the last one.  Not much into the design and process therein but I do know what looks good to me as an avid collector so take my opinion for what it's worth.  That of an average collector, if you please. 

Thanks for your input! I appreciate feedback from average collectors most of all - I'll need the average collectors of the world to help get this printed! :-)

I could easily add the white edges to the second design (actually, I just decided to do it. See attached), but part of what I like about it is how an individual card gets lost in the group in the original - kinda like a zebra. I do understand the preference for the white edges though. It can be a lot easier to deal when you can clearly see the number of cards in a pile. Plus wear and tear will definitely show more quickly on cards with bleed edges.

[Will W.]

I like that one a lot. My favorite by far.
I'm not into magic or cardistry but I do think your original back design would look good for flourishes.  I like how that design looks fanned out better than all the others.

[Don Boyer]

The second revamped back is my favorite although I do like the crisp white edges of the last one.  Not much into the design and process therein but I do know what looks good to me as an avid collector so take my opinion for what it's worth.  That of an average collector, if you please. 

Thanks for your input! I appreciate feedback from average collectors most of all - I'll need the average collectors of the world to help get this printed! :-)

I could easily add the white edges to the second design (actually, I just decided to do it. See attached), but part of what I like about it is how an individual card gets lost in the group in the original - kinda like a zebra. I do understand the preference for the white edges though. It can be a lot easier to deal when you can clearly see the number of cards in a pile. Plus wear and tear will definitely show more quickly on cards with bleed edges.

If the deck's background color was solid, as you'd find in a black deck, then yes, chipping shows rather obviously over a brief time.  But the pattern can also conceal chipping much as it would on a pack of off-the-shelf Bee Diamond Backs.

What you mentioned about the cards getting lost in each other is PRECISELY the reason a deck like this is popular with a magician or a card cheat - certain sleights of hand become simpler when the lack of a border disguises your sneakier moves.  It's one reason why casinos have mostly moved away from using borderless card designs, generally preferring something that has a hard border or that fades to a while border.

Borderless cards are NOT ideal for cardistry.  Some people use them for poker - but someone who knows how card cheats work would never play using a borderless design.  It's not impossible to hide sleights with a bordered deck, but it does present a more difficult challenge to the cheater.

For magic...  Well, most magicians prefer a deck the audience can identify with, so unless the deck is especially suited to the audience, they'd be more inclined to use something with standard faces.  Some have claimed that when a spectator sees an unusual, fully-custom deck that they assume it's a trick deck.  This isn't really true, certainly not for the majority of spectators.  A full-custom deck will be distracting - your audience will be paying sharper attention to the cards, more interested in them than in the deception (and at the same time, they'll become nearly immune to your attempts to misdirect them because they're staring so hard at the cards in your hand).  A creative or original back, usually done in a traditional style, combined with familiar, standard faces (perhaps with a slight tweak to the coloring) that people will immediately recognize and identify with, is the better choice for a magician.

What might be some "mission-specific" decks?  Nearly anything from Big Blind Media would go over better with a Goth crowd or a costume/Halloween party.  Older people (especially inveterate bridge players) might like the simpler designs of a pack or two of Congress.  Bridge-sized decks are also popular with many people who have smaller hands than the average adult - it's easier to manipulate and conceal the smaller cards.  School-aged children younger than high schoolers go nuts for attractive, cute decks like the Dog and Cat decks or the M&M's decks.

Wow, am I getting into a tangent here...  Move along, nothing to see...