Thank you Kevin, for the review of the deck, and thanks also to everybody on the thread that has given their thoughts on the deck.
The reviews are making me more and more curious... because whilst I can work with a deck featuring a mediocre two-way back design, handling really is the make or break factor for me.
The opinions on how this deck handles appears to be somewhat divided. Whilst nobody (so far) is saying that the handling trumps that of LPCC or EPCC, it's a split decision between whether the cards are better than average or not.
Whilst I don't have the deck yet, my suspicion is that they are printed at the Taiwan factory, and that they use the factory's "standard" coating (and not the coating that LPCC and EPCC use for their cards -- a guess would say that particular coating cannot be used without printing via LPCC or EPCC).
Hopefully my order will arrive in the upcoming week, and when it does, I'll share my thoughts on the stock, coating, embossing, and overall handling.
Go look for the free issue of CARD CULTURE that 52+J made available last summer - the link is on this forum, probably in this board. In it, there's an article I wrote that sums up the stocks and finishes used by Expert PCC. In plain terms, it's not a special coating - they import their papers from a secret source somewhere in Europe. "Coating" and "finish" are not interchangeable terms - the finish is the texture of the surface of the cards. Expert's card stocks vary in thickness AND in depth of the embossing used to create that texture, whereas most companies have stock that's just "embossed" - same depth from deck to deck.
The Taiwan plant has the know-how to make quality cards now, but the paper Expert uses is Expert's, not the plant's, and clearly isn't the paper that was used on this project. So yes, there will be similarities in appearance and quality but the handling is not as good.
You asked about whether the cards are "better than average." If your idea of average is anything made by Expert, the answer has to be "no." If your idea of average is "anything made on planet Earth," perhaps they're better, but that's a pretty low hurdle to vault. "Average" is going to depend on what pool of cards/manufacturers you are using as a reference to determine where the average comes from.
Also, bear in mind the possible issue with smooth edges - if they're smooth like what MPC produces since they got their new laser cutter, they're probably also not beveled at the edge like die-cut cards, making them impossible to weave or faro shuffle in either direction.
When I mentioned that I thought the coating was going to be different to what LPCC and EPCC use, I did indeed mean the coating.
I'm fully aware that the term "finish" is pretty much meaningless for USPCC cards, and terms like cambric finish, air cushion finish , linon finish, unicorn blood finish, etc, are nothing more than branding terms for one and the same thing.
These decks are obviously not USPCC cards, hence why any reference to the term "finish" does have meaning to it. I know that any EPCC and LPCC "finish" means the combination of card stock, coating, and embossing pattern (and possibly other factors also).
Anyhow, I didn't mention "finish" as being different in the quoted post-- I specifically mentioned that I suspected that the COATING would be inferior to what EPCC and LPCC use, because LPCC and EPCC use a special coating on their diamond/master finish cards and classic finish cards which other output from the Taiwan factory doesn't use. I have absolutely no reason to believe that the imported card stock comes pre-coated when they are picked up by LPCC or EPCC.
For example, the Play Fair deck by Kei Izumi, and the Fatboy and Amour decks by Coterie 1902 -- Whilst the card stock and embossing appears to be very very similar (and possibly the same), the coating is very easy to identify as being different, because those cards are not anywhere near as slick.
My white EATCT decks arrived earlier in the week and I've had a chance to put them through the usual works. The cards definitely are from the Taiwan plant that LPCC and EPCC use.
The card stock feels almost identical to that of a diamond/master finish deck... and so I wouldn't rule out the possibility that it's the same. However, the handling is very very different.
The white EATCT cards don't handle particularly great out of the box (for the first time) -- the first fan I did was terrible. Unlike master/diamond finish decks, the white EATCT cards need to be broken in... after that, they fan much better.
The embossing pattern on the cards appears to be the same as master/diamond finish cards... although the EATCT cards are embossed to a slightly greater depth.
The coating on the EATCT cards is definitely different to what LPCC and EPCC use. It's not bad... but definitely not up to LPCC and EPCC standard. Whilst the EATCT cards may be okay for a number of magic tricks, for gambling demos they aren't particularly great -- my fingers are very strong, but due to the coating not being slick enough, I found push-through false shuffles to be quite tough.
I reiterate that I didn't find the cards to have "bad" handling... but comparison to EPCC and LPCC handling would definitely make the EATCT handling seem "bad", and "cheap".
Although the back design is a blatant rip off (albeit with very slight modification) to the EATCT decks printed by USPCC, I like the look of the cards. I even liked the tuck.
Overall, I don't regret purchasing these decks
(Read 6514 times)
