Analysis of Design :: *Warning - Friggin Long.

[sastian]

LOVE THIS ARTICLE!

[Don Boyer]

LOVE THIS ARTICLE!

You must have more to say than just that.  What are your thoughts on it?

[variantventures]

Thank you for the original post and the discussion that followed.  It's been very informative and I'll be looking back at this frequently.  I think the best advice I read was 'Know your market and design for it'.  I think that's very true.  I design for a historical market that's very different than the mainstream market.  Non-poker and bridge sizes, single-side backs (even blank backs), non-standard suits, no indices, duller colors, and absolutely none of the handling characteristics cardists/magicians look for. What makes for a good card in my world probably horrifies most modern collectors and card users. Good design principles still apply and must be obeyed, however, as is evident in even the very earliest historical card designs.

[Pip Nosher]

A great and brave post, Pound. Sorry to see that half the images have been removed. But it still reads well.

Here's something that no one has really touched on yet: symmetry, which actually relates to the broader issues of the history and science of playing cards. There are others who know far more than I do about how cards have evolved, but there are certain principles that are integral to what cards are today, and foremost among these is symmetry. Once upon a time, court cards were one-way and, as Don observed, this provided a tell to others when you turned the card right-side up in your hand. Often, back designs were one-way, too. The first trick I learned as a kid was if you simply turned a card around before returning it to a deck with a one-way design, you could easily find it. Discerning card players always insist on a symmetrical back design.

There are two kinds of symmetry in cards: 1) what happens when you draw something and hold a mirror to it, and 2) a more sophisticated interlaced symmetry, most commonly seen on court cards. Within category one, there are important variations. To my mind, the worst offenders literally draw a line and cut and paste the top to the bottom. Sorry, but that's what the Jaqk deck does, and I think that is the least pleasing form of symmetry for a deck of cards. The second variant of category one is the design that still passes the mirror test, but does so with a central design element. Here's a bold example, Bicycle Allwheel:
[http://www.bicyclecards.org/Bicycle/02_Allwheel/red.jpg]

But some of the best card back designs feature symmetry that does not pass the mirror test. Because this is what I am most familiar with, I will again cite Bicycle cards: Acorn, Chainless, Thistle, and Wheel #2. Cupid and Motor #1 accomplish this in a very subtle way. Mobile #1 is arguably the most freakishly spectacular.

I guess my message to prospective card designers is: be aware of all of the design elements of your deck, and, following on Don's advice, pay particular attention to those that are peculiar to playing cards. Know your history, which may well give you the freedom to boldly dismiss it and do something innovative and hugely successful.

[Don Boyer]

Thank you, Pip, that was an excellent contribution.

On the topic of symmetry, it is a common mistake of some designers to use mirror symmetry when creating their deck of cards, along either the vertical or horizontal axes.

Simple but functional symmetry for cards can be achieved when using mirror symmetry, but along BOTH axes, vertical and horizontal - in essence, the simple repeating of a corner design, "flipped" from corner to corner around the card, insuring that the points meeting the axes will have "counterpart" points on the other side of the axes.

But the true nature of symmetry for a deck of cards, as I see it, is achieving "rotational" symmetry, and not necessarily along an axis, as can be seen in Pip's excellent design examples.  In essence, you create a half-card design with an "interlocking" edge, in that when taking the design and rotating a copy of it around the center point 180 degrees, the edges will perfectly fit together like jigsaw puzzle pieces.  This feat is a challenge even for artist utilizing modern design tools (a.k.a. computers and design software) - I can only imagine how difficult it was to achieve in the pre-computer era of print design.  I would venture to guess that if carefully analyzed, some of those handmade designs are actually inadvertently asymmetrical in very subtle ways.

Using mirror symmetry alone along a single axis can still result in a design that's one way.  For example, I could take a picture of some object or scene, use it for the top half of a deck back, then mirror that image on the bottom half.  Alternately, I could do the same but creating a left half and mirroring it to the right.  But if the image itself isn't made up of two symmetrical halves, the end result will be a card design that's completely different in appearance when spun 180 degrees while lying on the table.  But if you have mirror symmetry along both axes, you have in essence created rotational symmetry as well, albeit it with a somewhat simple design compared to the ones with a more complex, "interlocking" edge to them.

[Pip Nosher]

Thanks, Don. I took the vertical axis symmetry for granted, but you are entirely right that an image that is mirrored on a single axis can still be one way. Thanks also for teaching me the great term, "rotational symmetry." That's what I'm looking for in a card back design. Here are two more examples of rotational symmetry (non-USPC bicycle cards). While I find the first design quite pleasing, the interlocking of the puzzle pieces is not as complex as it could be. The second is actually technically a one-way design, because the tires don't interlock in the center. But, it is otherwise quite literally rotational.

[Don Boyer]

Thanks, Don. I took the vertical axis symmetry for granted, but you are entirely right that an image that is mirrored on a single axis can still be one way. Thanks also for teaching me the great term, "rotational symmetry." That's what I'm looking for in a card back design. Here are two more examples of rotational symmetry (non-USPC bicycle cards). While I find the first design quite pleasing, the interlocking of the puzzle pieces is not as complex as it could be. The second is actually technically a one-way design, because the tires don't interlock in the center. But, it is otherwise quite literally rotational.

You're welcome.  That term may or may not be the correct technical term, but it works well enough for me so I use it!

These two examples you provided are excellent examples.  The first one is a textbook case of complex rotational symmetry.  The card could have been constructed along a curved, bisecting line running right through those tires and the big center sprocket.  It's exceptionally difficult to achieve this even with the use of modern tools because of all the points along the way that have to have a counterpart point on the other side.  Off by just a millimeter and it's visible.  It's hard enough doing it along a straight line axis, but this is an order of magnitude harder as I see it.  A still-available, more common back using this type of symmetry would be the Hoyle Shellback.

The second one, if you disregard the non-interlinked tires in the center, is a very good example of mirror symmetry along both axes.  Imagine if you would, having created the top left corner of the design, then mirroring it to the right side, then mirroring both corners from the top to the bottom - it's nowhere near as complex as the first example of symmetry, but many, many card designs are done in a symmetry style just like this, including the still-common Bicycle Rider Back, Bee Diamond Back, Tally Ho Original Fan Back, etc.

At one time in history, the Tally Ho Original Circle Back would have been considered as having dual-axis mirror symmetry - but not any longer.  I noticed that with newer examples of the design, there's a slight alteration that was made to the design which keeps the vertical axis symmetry, but not the horizontal-axis symmetry.  There are two small "petaled flower blooms" resting on the y-axis (vertical) of the design.  The alteration is that for one of these two flowers, the gap between the two petals closest to the short side of the rectangle (top or bottom, depending on orientation) was increased just a small amount, enough to render it a one-way mark!  Honestly, it looks more like a printing error, but with Tally Ho being a popular deck with magicians, anything is possible.  I do know that the error didn't exist on a vintage pack I have from the 1970s but that most every iteration of the design I see today has the error built into it - the "off the shelf" model, the Tally Ho Titanium decks from Theory11, the Tally Ho Circle Backs made for Japanese magician Tomohiro Maeda, the black Tally Ho deck, etc.  I'm pretty sure from memory that the Ellusionist Tally Ho Vipers also have this error, at least until the point where the Circle Back version was discontinued from their product line perhaps a year or two ago; presently only the Fan Back version (with all-silver faces and backs on a black background) is in print.

[Pip Nosher]

Actually, the second card is also an example of rotational symmetry. Note that while the bicycle wheels are perfectly mirrored on both axes, the bicycle frames are not.

After a few moments on Google, here's what I know: Generally speaking, an object with rotational symmetry, also known in biological contexts as radial symmetry, is an object that looks the same after a certain amount of rotation. The degree of rotational symmetry is how many degrees the shape has to be turned to look the same on a different side or vertex.

The purple card, above, is an example of a dyad, or an object that must be rotated 180 degrees to look the same. Another familiar example is the yin and yang symbol.

The blue card, above, is an example of a tetrad, an object that must be rotated 90 degrees to look the same. Another familiar example is the swastika.

The Wheel No. 2 card in my earlier post (3rd card) is actually a combination of a dyad (the high-wheel bicycles) and a tetrad (the winged wheel in the center of the card). The Mobile No. 1 (4th card) is a combination of mirror symmetry on both axes (the background and motor cars) and a tetrad (the four tires in the center).

Some might think that this sidebar into the science of symmetry is a digression in this thread. I strongly disagree. Any designer of playing cards should understand these principles, as they are fundamental to the art of playing card design. All the examples above also show that it is possible to use these different types of symmetry, alone and in combination, for some very pleasing and successful designs.

[Don Boyer]

Actually, the second card is also an example of rotational symmetry. Note that while the bicycle wheels are perfectly mirrored on both axes, the bicycle frames are not.

After a few moments on Google, here's what I know: Generally speaking, an object with rotational symmetry, also known in biological contexts as radial symmetry, is an object that looks the same after a certain amount of rotation. The degree of rotational symmetry is how many degrees the shape has to be turned to look the same on a different side or vertex.

The purple card, above, is an example of a dyad, or an object that must be rotated 180 degrees to look the same. Another familiar example is the yin and yang symbol.

The blue card, above, is an example of a tetrad, an object that must be rotated 90 degrees to look the same. Another familiar example is the swastika.

The Wheel No. 2 card in my earlier post (3rd card) is actually a combination of a dyad (the high-wheel bicycles) and a tetrad (the winged wheel in the center of the card). The Mobile No. 1 (4th card) is a combination of mirror symmetry on both axes (the background and motor cars) and a tetrad (the four tires in the center).

Some might think that this sidebar into the science of symmetry is a digression in this thread. I strongly disagree. Any designer of playing cards should understand these principles, as they are fundamental to the art of playing card design. All the examples above also show that it is possible to use these different types of symmetry, alone and in combination, for some very pleasing and successful designs.

The second is almost an example of radial symmetry - the wheels in the center overlap rather than interlink, taking away the symmetry and rendering the design as a one-way back.

Only a portion of a standard poker or bridge playing card, such as specific design elements, can be described as being a triad or a tetrad - it's the rectangular shape of the card that prevents the whole back design from being a triad or a tetrad.  As a whole, the most you'll get with a playing card is a dyad.

A prime example of a card with a triad design element would be the Bicycle League Back deck, with a center element of a bicycle tire with three wings emanating from the center spoke.  The rest of the card's design, however, is a dyad.  The purple card's center element, a round pedal gear cut in a cross pattern in the center, would qualify as a tetrad, but the remaining back elements are all one big dyad - and of course, anything that's a tetrad is also a dyad.

The closest you'd get to tetrad radial symmetry is that each quadrant of the card will either be identical to or a mirror image of the other quadrants.  But turning the card ninety degrees will not give you an identical image to the one you started with unless your cards happen to be either round or square.