SERIES 1800 remake by Ellusionist - MARKED DECK

[Rob Wright]

Speculation on facebook of this being a mini deck, but if that's a drink coaster in the one picture. Then I would say not......

..........or It could be an elusion, and they are trying to fool us 

Ellusionist: Magic Beyond Belief

Liked · October 1  ·

|| COMING SOON || Just one thing.

[Don Boyer]

Maybe, just maybe, they're finally going to give this deck the support it deserves and come out with gaffed cards and decks for it!

[Rose]

I like this 'vintage' style.

[Don Boyer]

I like this 'vintage' style.

This deck's a number of years old now.  All of the oldest Ellusionist decks have the Rider Back design on them, like this one.  It's sort of the granddaddy of the vintage-look deck.  There were a few other attempts made before, but one looks like it was simply dumped in toxic waste (hence it's called the "Bicycle Dirty Deck", in two nasty-looking color schemes), and the other, by Magic Makers and called the Bicycle Faded Deck, looks like the ink was painted on and that the paint is cracking after a few decades of rain, sun, cold and wind.  Magic Makers was kind enough to include gaff cards.  (To add confusion, some dealers call the Dirty Deck the Faded Deck as well.)  This was the first to have some kind of a more "realistic" look to it.

All of the above-mentioned designs have a subtle-enough one-way back, but the Series 1800 was unique among all one-way backs I've seen for one reason.  In most cases of decks with one-way backs, even ones with hidden or subtle one-way backs, the backs and faces are oriented the same way relative to each other, meaning that a "correct-edge up" back can be rotated along the vertical axis to reveal that the face is also "correct-edge up".  The Series 1800, however, had the backs oriented "correctly" on some cards, "rotated" on others.  This way, when the backs are all oriented the same way to each other, the faces will be a mix of correctly and incorrectly oriented, giving the pack a more mixed-up appearance from the front and deepening the illusion of the cards not being arranged in any special manner.

There was a company a few years ago that was advertising "Pale Riders" - a genuinely faded-look pack of Bicycle Rider Backs, sort of a "ghostly afterimage" - but it was discovered that it was meant not as a mass-produced item but as a magicians' gaff deck and it never made it to market because the "manufacturing process" involved taking regular consumer-issue off-the-shelf packs and chemically treating them to make the inks fade - they never quite perfected the process to reliably produce a decent amount of decks in an economically-viable manner.

[Justin O.]

The Bicycle Expert Backs I think fit in with the above list as well, they are a particular favorite of mine and were the first pack of bikes I picked up as a collector.

[Don Boyer]

The Bicycle Expert Backs I think fit in with the above list as well, they are a particular favorite of mine and were the first pack of bikes I picked up as a collector.

Oh, you mean the "Distressed" Expert Backs...  I was a bit confused at first.

Back to the point, I am crossing my fingers that they're doing something to support the existing product, like gaffed decks and cards.  It's a perfectly fine deck as it is.

[max]

I like this 'vintage' style.

This deck's a number of years old now.  All of the oldest Ellusionist decks have the Rider Back design on them, like this one.  It's sort of the granddaddy of the vintage-look deck.  There were a few other attempts made before, but one looks like it was simply dumped in toxic waste (hence it's called the "Bicycle Dirty Deck", in two nasty-looking color schemes), and the other, by Magic Makers and called the Bicycle Faded Deck, looks like the ink was painted on and that the paint is cracking after a few decades of rain, sun, cold and wind.  Magic Makers was kind enough to include gaff cards.  (To add confusion, some dealers call the Dirty Deck the Faded Deck as well.)  This was the first to have some kind of a more "realistic" look to it.

All of the above-mentioned designs have a subtle-enough one-way back, but the Series 1800 was unique among all one-way backs I've seen for one reason.  In most cases of decks with one-way backs, even ones with hidden or subtle one-way backs, the backs and faces are oriented the same way relative to each other, meaning that a "correct-edge up" back can be rotated along the vertical axis to reveal that the face is also "correct-edge up".  The Series 1800, however, had the backs oriented "correctly" on some cards, "rotated" on others.  This way, when the backs are all oriented the same way to each other, the faces will be a mix of correctly and incorrectly oriented, giving the pack a more mixed-up appearance from the front and deepening the illusion of the cards not being arranged in any special manner.

There was a company a few years ago that was advertising "Pale Riders" - a genuinely faded-look pack of Bicycle Rider Backs, sort of a "ghostly afterimage" - but it was discovered that it was meant not as a mass-produced item but as a magicians' gaff deck and it never made it to market because the "manufacturing process" involved taking regular consumer-issue off-the-shelf packs and chemically treating them to make the inks fade - they never quite perfected the process to reliably produce a decent amount of decks in an economically-viable manner.

Thank you so much Don for clarifying the Pale decks thing... I wasn't sure if they really existed or not. I saw it in Aaron Magic many years ago and I lost the trace. By the way that image of the Australian decks confuses me. Is that the typical cardboard over the real deck or the deck has that aspect?

I know there are several versions of this 1800 decks noticeable in the logo and tuck case. I know not many people is so crazy (as I am) to collect every variation, specially first editions and version, but I would like to have some kind of guide about that in someway (I have tried to contact Ellusionist and T11 about 1st editions of some decks but never got their answer).

Thanks!

[Don Boyer]

Thank you so much Don for clarifying the Pale decks thing... I wasn't sure if they really existed or not. I saw it in Aaron Magic many years ago and I lost the trace. By the way that image of the Australian decks confuses me. Is that the typical cardboard over the real deck or the deck has that aspect?

I know there are several versions of this 1800 decks noticeable in the logo and tuck case. I know not many people is so crazy (as I am) to collect every variation, specially first editions and version, but I would like to have some kind of guide about that in someway (I have tried to contact Ellusionist and T11 about 1st editions of some decks but never got their answer).

Thanks!

The Aussie packaging was a bag large enough to hold the deck and some papers which probably explained a trick or two for the gaffs.  I've seen the paper before online, but the American version is slightly different than the Aussie version, so I opted to show the Aussie one.  I found the image on eBay, I think - Rose is Aussie so I thought she'd appreciate it.  The actual deck itself is identical.

As far as I know, there was two printings of the deck.  The original came "post UV-500" and had an "Air Cushion" finish marking on the box - but the cards had a terrible tendency to cling together after only a little use.  After that, there was the change with a slight difference in the "dirt" pattern on the back of the box, a change to the "Ellusionist Playing Card Co." logo on the box bottom, the side that used to say it was made by USPC says instead that it was made by E, and "Air Cushion" was swapped out for "Performance Coating" - this version performed much better than the first.

There may have been additional printings, but to my knowledge, there's no variations between the print runs, at least not any that are visible from the tuck box.

I think it was Big Apple Magic that was working on making the Pale Riders.  Mike Ferrante had an order in with them for months, back when he was still running BMPW, and eventually just canceled it.  I've never seen the decks appear anywhere - the nerd term for that is "vaporware". 

[Justin O.]

The Bicycle Expert Backs I think fit in with the above list as well, they are a particular favorite of mine and were the first pack of bikes I picked up as a collector.

Oh, you mean the "Distressed" Expert Backs...  I was a bit confused at first.

Do they produce a non-distressed expert back deck? The Bicycle web store only has them listed as the 'Bicycle Expert Back Deck'

[KPopFever605]

Their teasers have been puzzling me as to what they'll be releasing. I'm excited to see that i'll be. Will I buy it? We'll see.

[Rose]

The Aussie packaging was a bag large enough to hold the deck and some papers which probably explained a trick or two for the gaffs.  I've seen the paper before online, but the American version is slightly different than the Aussie version, so I opted to show the Aussie one.  I found the image on eBay, I think - Rose is Aussie so I thought she'd appreciate it.  The actual deck itself is identical.

Ha, yes I did appreciate that. Although I half expect when people post Aussie versions for decks to be upside down! 

[Don Boyer]

The Bicycle Expert Backs I think fit in with the above list as well, they are a particular favorite of mine and were the first pack of bikes I picked up as a collector.

Oh, you mean the "Distressed" Expert Backs...  I was a bit confused at first.

Do they produce a non-distressed expert back deck? The Bicycle web store only has them listed as the 'Bicycle Expert Back Deck'

As you can see from the photos in this post, it's a vintage back from USPC used for Bicycle.  I was reasonably sure that the design had been reprinted as part of the Heritage Design Series or the Vintage Series but I wasn't able to find it online - I'd have to look at my cards back home.

I do know that the first version of the Distressed Expert Back deck actually had the wrong back on it!  The Expert Back is often confused with the Old Fan Back - the designs are extremely similar to each other, similar enough that someone in USPC's Art Department mixed them up when reprinting this deck in a distressed version.  If you don't have an Old Fan Back lying around, they used the same back on the 125th and 127th Anniversary decks as well.  The first one also had a much darker aging effect in the art - you can immediately tell the difference between the two because of how much lighter the corrected version is compared to the original.  (This was only in red at the time - the blue and green decks, which appear to have been Walmart exclusives, came out after the correction had been made.)

Ha, yes I did appreciate that. Although I half expect when people post Aussie versions for decks to be upside down! 

I'll keep that in mind the next time I'm posting a pack of cards for you!

[BiggerDee]

I just hope that the next version looks more truly vintage (read: old) versus their previous version of vintage, pulled out of a wet, moldy, nasty basement.

[PurpleIce]

Well....they are out...

Looks the same to me though..Wait a minute...Oh Look! They are marked!!! TA DAH!!! 

[Don Boyer]

Did I call it, or did I call it!  I'm shocked they were able to do it, but apparently USPC allowed it.  Has USPC changed their stance on back alterations??

Actually, I have a theory.  Because the markings are hidden in the color rather than a part of the pattern of the back design itself, perhaps they didn't actually consider this an alteration of the design.  When you think of it that way, it actually makes some sense, much like how they don't consider the aged-look as an alteration of the deck.  If they did, E would never have been given permission to make any new printings of the 1800s - but they certainly have had at least one printing since the USPC policy of unaltered back designs went into effect.

I moved the topic to the Bonanza - it's a marked deck, after all, and thus it's magician's gear.

[Don Boyer]

I got my decks today, so first impressions...

The stock used is VERY FIRM, stiffer than ordinary 1800s.  Bee stock?  Clearly they were made to last.

The marks are plainly readable, no code or system to it, much like the marked Phoenix decks or the Ultimate Marked Deck - but you need GREAT eyesight at times to distinguish the markings.  They are actually concealed in the "cracks" of the design, and if there's extra cracks nearby, well - you need to look carefully.  But I can confidently say this - it would be nearly impossible to figure out it's marked using the "going to the movies" riffle test.  There's so many little cracks and age spots in the design that EVERYTHING is moving!  You'd have no idea where to look, precisely, and the markings are quite small as well as being camouflaged by the faux aging.

In summary, my first impressions are that it's a very good deck at a great price, but you need to practice reading the markings before you attempt using it in a trick (or a crooked card game).  I love that the marked version goes for the same price as the unmarked ones!

FYI: how to tell the difference between marked and unmarked: marked decks use a standard black USPC seal, while the standard decks use an aged-look USPC seal in the opposing color - red on the blue deck, blue on the red deck.  If you don't like the look of the standard sticker seal on the aged deck, just remove it completely.

[Grech]

I got my 1800s marked decks last week.  While the cards themselves are great, I find the markings virtually impossible to read on many cards.  I don't think these are really practical for most tricks.

[Don Boyer]

I got my 1800s marked decks last week.  While the cards themselves are great, I find the markings virtually impossible to read on many cards.  I don't think these are really practical for most tricks.

I'm the first to admit they're difficult to read.  But with a little practice, you can get better at reading them - I know I have.  If they were much larger, spectators would be able to read them as well.