Re: What is a re-color? (or: A small aside on the Black Diamond TH and Ferraris)

[JacksonRobinson]

So this is what I see (below) and why I consider this a recolor. I don't consider the first KW Tally-Ho as part of this collection, and maybe that is a mistake on my part. The decks are even named by color.

(I apologize for the crappy MS paint draft-up, but I think you get the idea. Obviously I'm not a golfer)

And I do want to stress the unbelievable respect and appreciation I have for Jackson and the entire KW brand, these decks are no exception.

... there is nothing I hate more as a card designer than a recolor. ...

I don't mean to be rude, and I hope I am not offending you.

I'm really sorry but it is useless at this point to argue about this topic any further. There are so many design elements and principals you are missing and deleting by just creating large circles over 90% of my design. I'm not offended at all. Each one of the these designs has a different design languages. The shapes and forms are different, the rithym and flow is different. The scale and size of those shapes is composed differently. They each take their shape ques from that overarching suite that represents each deck. IE Scarlett/Spades, Emerald/Clubs, Diamonds/Diamonds, ect. If you believe that my designs are in the same ball park as the 11th recolor of the madison decks then we will always disagree... and that ok. No hard feelings.

[Jay Losa]

It's so obvious these aren't recolors. I don't know why it's so hard to see that. However, I see no problem with recolors either. I love them. All the monarch recolors are great in my opinion (except for the green one).

[Don Boyer]

Apologies but did the entire thread for the Black Diamond Tally Hos just get hijacked and renamed "What is a re-color"?

If so poor form Playing Card Forum.

I'm going to try teasing these two apart into different topics.  It got way out of hand.

[Jay Losa]

I'm going to try teasing these two apart into different topics.  It got way out of hand.

Good call

[Fess]

Apologies but did the entire thread for the Black Diamond Tally Hos just get hijacked and renamed "What is a re-color"?

If so poor form Playing Card Forum.

I'm going to try teasing these two apart into different topics.  It got way out of hand.

Oooh waaay past out of hand haha. It got ridiculous when the paint marker hit the card backs. Even so it's been hilarious! I've had a lot of fun reading these posts.

[Don Boyer]

Apologies but did the entire thread for the Black Diamond Tally Hos just get hijacked and renamed "What is a re-color"?

If so poor form Playing Card Forum.

I'm going to try teasing these two apart into different topics.  It got way out of hand.

Oooh waaay past out of hand haha. It got ridiculous when the paint marker hit the card backs. Even so it's been hilarious! I've had a lot of fun reading these posts.

Hell, I'm just warming up... 

I fear that no one here will convince Justin that he's utterly confused about what a redesign is and what a recolor is.
...
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.
...
Now, I'm going to REDESIGN my sentence, Yoda-style...
Jumped over the lazy dog, the quick brown fox did.
...
Do you get it now, Justin?

I'm not confused, I don't appreciate that. "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog." and "Jumped over the lazy dog, the quick brown fox did." are the same sentence to me, because the words you use don't define what the sentence is.

I know it's frustrating when you feel like you are stating a universal truth and someone doesn't agree. You wonder how that person can not see the obvious and simple, rudimentary logic behind the facts you are providing and how they lead to a single glowing answer that is the only possible answer in all the realms of all possibility.

Let's all just agree that we are right, that the other person is entitled to be wrong, and that's ok, because we know, deep down inside, that we are the most right of all rights, and anyone who says otherwise is either stupid or ignorant, because we have facts on our side, and an arsenal of universal constants that bolster our resolve.

You're very confused.  But you're so confused that you don't even realize how confused you are!

Like I said, it's like being half-pregnant.  Either it's a recolor, or it isn't.  None of these Tally Ho decks from Jackson are recolors of anything - actual design elements had to be changed to make the new design.  Call them patterns, call them whatever you want - but it's more than merely colors.

BTW: those two sentences you said are the same?  They don't even have the same number of words in them...  They convey the same idea, but do so in different ways.  If all you see is that they're the same, I can imagine what you see when you read the works of a real author like Shakespeare.

Where I see
But, soft! what light through yonder window breaks?
It is the east, and Juliet is the sun.
Arise, fair sun, and kill the envious moon,
Who is already sick and pale with grief,
That thou her maid art far more fair than she:
Be not her maid, since she is envious;
Her vestal livery is but sick and green
And none but fools do wear it; cast it off.

You would see
Hey, looky-there - it's Juliet in that thar window!  She's purty...

Both passages "say the same thing," from a certain point of view - yours, to be precise.  But you need not be a Rhodes scholar to see there's a drastic difference between the two.  It's more accurate to say they convey the same idea, but one does so with poetry and elegance while the other does so with all the delicacy of jamming one's hand into a blender set to "liquefy."

Seriously, to shrug off the changes made from deck to deck and categorize them as "recolors" is an insult to the designer and the concept of design itself.  Jackson's simply being gracious enough to gloss over it and not be bothered by it.

So no, "we" are not right, but there is a way to put this into perspective.

• If a deck's design goes unaltered but the colors are changed, that's a recolor.
• If a deck's design changes, even if only a little bit, that's a redesign.
• If a deck's design changes in less than some handful of ways personally defined by you, that's a "minimal redesign."  You've called it a "recolor" all this time, but it's the wrong term, leading people to think you don't know what you're talking about.  But to say the design is in your opinion "minimally changed," or that it's "extremely similar" gives people the impression that you have a more accurate grasp of the situation - even if the parameters of what constitutes said minimal state of change is defined by you and for you alone.  Because once you start talking about degrees of change, unless you're going to measure the percentage of area changed and declare some standard, it will always be up to the individual as to what constitutes a true, full redesign and a minimal redesign.

[Justin O.]

Apologies but did the entire thread for the Black Diamond Tally Hos just get hijacked and renamed "What is a re-color"?
If so poor form Playing Card Forum.

That was my fault Jackson, I apologize, I started the BDTH thread originally and just edited to title so people knew what they were c licking into, Don got the thread split up so the BDTH has it’s own spot.

You're very confused.  But you're so confused that you don't even realize how confused you are!

Like I said ... BTW: those two sentences you said are the same?  They don't even have the same number of words in them...  They convey the same idea, but do so in different ways.
...
Both passages "say the same thing," from a certain point of view - yours, to be precise. ...

Seriously, to shrug off the changes made from deck to deck and categorize them as "recolors" is an insult to the designer and the concept of design itself.  Jackson's simply being gracious enough to gloss over it and not be bothered by it.

So no, "we" are not right, but there is a way to put this into perspective.
...
You've called it a "recolor" all this time, but it's the wrong term ... But to say the design is in your opinion "minimally changed," ...  Because once you start talking about degrees of change ... it will always be up to the individual as to what constitutes a true ...

Seriously don’t need to be telling me what I am, that’s not your place, right, or privilege. Please keep it impersonal. You are culpable for how people take your words, regardless of what you mean by them.

The Shakespeare example doesn’t work for me, the entire core structure of the two sentences is completely different, not just most of the same words in a different order that say the same thing.

For me it isn’t just about what is being said, characters in a line that make a sentence, but how it is being said, and I don’t mean the words used and the order used therein, I mean the structure that is used, when you look at the overall composition, not the arrangement, the intent, not the words, the quick fox example is the same thing to me, where the Shakespeare example is very different. I feel like the above Ferrari example I made was decent to express  where I am coming from.


And I would expect Jackson to be honest, not gracious, if he was offended. My suspicion is that he believes I am wrong and, can’t see it, and that takes any substance out anything I say that might offend him otherwise.
But I believe he knows that I am a fan of his work before anything and there is no criticism meant by my argument.

[HankMan]

Justin, I think I understand why think it is a "Recolor" rather than a new design. I believe you are referring the KWTH somewhat a recolor of "Circle Back" design tally ho.

If you think that is the case, what do you think of rider back and madolin back?
they both have the same exact layout, but 1 has an angel riding bicycle and 1 has a maiden. Would you consider this a different design or recolor?

[Justin O.]

Justin, I think I understand why think it is a "Recolor" rather than a new design. I believe you are referring the KWTH somewhat a recolor of "Circle Back" design tally ho.

If you think that is the case, what do you think of rider back and madolin back?
they both have the same exact layout, but 1 has an angel riding bicycle and 1 has a maiden. Would you consider this a different design or recolor?

I'm about to really shoot myself in the foot here, but I don't consider this a recolor. 

[Marcus]

I'm about to really shoot myself in the foot here, but I don't consider this a recolor. 

And this is why it makes sense to use the definitions Don and I have presented, because they don't involve any arbitrary decisions. If any design element has been changed, it's always a redesign. If the color is the only thing that has been changed, it's a recolor. There's no grey zone and no room for confusion.

[Fess]

I'm about to really shoot myself in the foot here, but I don't consider this a recolor. 

And this is why it makes sense to use the definitions Don and I have presented, because they don't involve any arbitrary decisions. If any design element has been changed, it's always a redesign. If the color is the only thing that has been changed, it's a recolor. There's no grey zone and no room for confusion.

This is why I opted out of the actual conversation when the marker hit the card backs. The reality of standards was spoken of here at length, never made a dent. Opinion is everywhere and Justin enjoys his, good enough.  Haha, it's still been a fun thread. As far as comedy goes, intentional or not, this one's been the win! In my opinion at least.

[Don Boyer]

Seriously don’t need to be telling me what I am, that’s not your place, right, or privilege. Please keep it impersonal. You are culpable for how people take your words, regardless of what you mean by them.

When you're right, you're right.  It's not so much a matter of keeping it impersonal as keeping it civil, and I may have cross that line.  I apologize for that.  I got carried away - I'm as imperfect as the next guy and never too big to admit when I'm wrong.  Finding the truth is more important to me than having my ego stroked.

Justin, I think I understand why think it is a "Recolor" rather than a new design. I believe you are referring the KWTH somewhat a recolor of "Circle Back" design tally ho.

If you think that is the case, what do you think of rider back and madolin back?
they both have the same exact layout, but 1 has an angel riding bicycle and 1 has a maiden. Would you consider this a different design or recolor?

I'm about to really shoot myself in the foot here, but I don't consider this a recolor. 

To be fair, it's more than simply an angel riding a bicycle versus a standing maiden with her arms spread.  The cherubs in the corners are replaced with maidens and the border patterns are almost the inverse of each other in many ways.  There's a lot of differences between the two designs, and I personally find the Maiden Back more attractive and of closer similarity to the Rider Back than its closest competing design, the Mandolin Back.

The intent behind the Mandolin back and Maiden Back designs was to create a design was different enough to be unique and thus eligible for a copyright, while at the same time similar enough that spectators wouldn't realize it's not the same design as the cards they have at home.  Because Rider Backs have an expired copyright, USPC can only protect the designs as trademarks, and for a trademark to be enforceable, the owner can't allow it to become "diluted" by allowing altered versions of it in the marketplace.  It's why USPC stopped permitting changes to certain key design elements of their decks - mostly the card backs, unique Aces of Spades and unique Jokers.  Copyright protection allows for alterations without dilution of legal protection of intellectual property.

In plainer terms, USPC can allow magicians and others to make changes to the Mandolin Back and Maiden Back designs like reveals, markings, gaffs, etc. and still be protected legally against counterfeiters of their merchandise.  However, only the backs can be changed - they still use the standard Bicycle jokers and Ace of Spades, neither of which is protected under copyright, but instead only under trademark.  Both would be redesigns of the Rider Back, not simply recolors, and you arguably could say they're more different from the Rider Back than Jackson's last three Tally Ho Circle Back designs are from each other.

[Fess]

Both would be redesigns of the Rider Back, not simply recolors, and you arguably could say they're more different from the Rider Back than Jackson's last three Tally Ho Circle Back designs are from each other.

That's a very difficult argument to make in my opinion. How much more different one is than another isn't an easy conversation to have.  Hoyle Shell backs vs Rider back vs Jacksons Tally Ho's that's still not an easy argument but one better suited to the point you're making I think given the elements of the card back designs.

[Don Boyer]

Both would be redesigns of the Rider Back, not simply recolors, and you arguably could say they're more different from the Rider Back than Jackson's last three Tally Ho Circle Back designs are from each other.

That's a very difficult argument to make in my opinion. How much more different one is than another isn't an easy conversation to have.  Hoyle Shell backs vs Rider back vs Jacksons Tally Ho's that's still not an easy argument but one better suited to the point you're making I think given the elements of the card back designs.

Like I said, "arguably."  There's one somewhat scientific way of measuring it - determine the precise area of the pattern change and calculate the percentage difference from the original.  But it's not an easy measurement to make and more effort than it's worth, considering the nature of the debate.

The key here is that there's a subjective line, different from individual to individual and possibly from comparison to comparison, as to what constitutes "new design" and what is "slight alteration of existing design."  My line in the sand will be in a different part of the beach than yours or anyone else's.  But as far as "recolor," there's no arguing that - unaltered design except for changes of an entire field(-s) of color from one color to a different color, or all instances of a color from one color to another color.