sinjin7 wrote:Everyone has opinions, and that's all fine of course. One would hope that those opinions have some basis in fact however. I own almost every EPCC/LPCC deck in existence, with the few exceptions being the KS decks with unappealing designs. Expert and Legends are fairly young companies, being in existence only about 6 years or so. But even with this limited existence, there has been drastic differences in handling. They went from god-awful (anyone still remember their Global Titans decks?) to fairly decent in that period of time. But even their current decks are very inconsistent, especially from their Chinese printer.
The finish on cards is an exact science, where playing card producers spend years (and in the case of USPCC, decades) crafting and tweaking to get that specific combination of calendaring and varnish for optimal slip. There's actually nothing subjective about it, the dimple pattern and varnish composition are empirical and qualitative elements in the physics of card manufacturing and handling. The only time subjectivity enters into play is whether one person prefers one company's finish over another according to their skill level, preferences. and techniques of card manipulation.
I have Carta Mundi decks from the 90's, and the finish was not good (great card stock, though). They were so bad I rarely collected any of their decks from 2000 - 2015. CM didn't get back on my radar until they started cold-foiling, and it was only then I realized CM went through an inverse transformation: awesome finish but flimsy card stock. The recent CM decks I've bought in the past few years have buttery smooth finish, even when foiled, but very poor performance in elastic deformation due to the soft paper stock, They don't seem to hold up well and I have grave doubts as to their long term durability, particularly for cardsistry purposes where more aggressive card manipulation is required.
You can get a Bicycle Rider Back deck from 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020 and they'll all handle the same. Sure, there will be some variation in snap in the card stock, particularly after they moved form Ohio to Kentucky, but the Air Cushion finish will still be excellent. That is consistency. EPCC/LPCC don't even come close, we'll see how CM holds up in the next few years.
At the end of the day, I'm no real expert, just a guy with way too many decks in his collection. I know I sound like a broken record, but take the cue from professionals who depend on how cards handle in order to put food on the table for their families. Until you see people like the Buck twins, the Virts, Richard Turner, or De'Vo switch from USPCC over to any other card manufacturer, you'll know USPCC is still the most consistent.
I wouldn't say my opinion is less fact based and more that we have different lenses that we observe things through

.
What I mean by "it's not an exact science" is, that the multitude of parameters during the print and the finishing process is pretty hard to control and to keep on a steady level. Therefore print runs are kinda like finger prints; a lot are similar but none is the exact same. Absolute 100% consistency is not possible. That said the level consistency we have in the industry is top notch. So we're talking about margins, imo.
I would say that all established manufacturers are on a pretty good level with their consistency. If they so choose! What I mean by that is, that it's kind of dishonest to compare EPCC/LPCC decks as a whole with USPC imo.
USPC has their process down and they wanna do business as usual. Bikes shall be like Bikes and Bees shall be like Bees all the time. Which is a good thing.
EPCC/LPCC however are - like you mentioned yourself - A) still in the finding/experimental/early stage and B) wants to experiment with different printers, stocks and finishes. So it is kinda comparing apples with oranges. But feel free to disagree.
What I meant with them being more consistent (and to clarify it's tiny margins - kinda nitpicking - it's not like USPC is brutally inconsistent) in my experience is that e.g. all KWP EPCC decks I have feel very consistent - more consistent than e.g. the different 7-11 Bicycle editions. That's a comparison I find to be more honest/convincing. But mileage may vary.
When I mention Cartamundi I'm only referring to Thurnout, Belgium B9 and C9 decks. The rest (Texas, Mexiko, ...) are indeed souvenir deck quality.
At the end of the day card feel is always subjective. My hands/fingers sense things different than yours.
The paragraph with the experts is a bit misleading. Don't you think? It's like saying Under Armor makes the best cleats because Tom Brady uses them. Or saying Nike makes the best shoes because Michael Jordan played in them (fun fact: Jordan wanted to be sponsored by adidas because he liked them the most but they didn't even made him an offer since they already sponsored a lot of stars back then).
All folks mentioned are Americans (or in the case of thevirts heavily influenced/inspired by them) which of course, if the leading manufacturer of poker playing cards is as well American, will produce with them. USPC is what they grew up with. USPC is what their idols use/used. So it doesn't prove anything regarding quality per se. It's a clue/hint but not a prove.
Ellusionist for example, switched to Cartamundi. Daniel Madison (who trained, lectured David Blaine on card magic) switched as well. Kellar, Caroline Ravn and that magician (forgot his name - was it Jeremy Griffin/Griffith?) that made the Republic deck with Ellusionist produced with Cartamundi. Touch cardistry (and don't tell me Dimitri and Ladislav are worse cardists than the virts) as well.
Does it say something about the quality of USPC or Cartamundi cards? I guess we both agree that it does not.
I guess you get my point here. USPC is top tier no doubt, but it just proves anything to drop names; especially not if the market is/was pretty small and the lack of alternatives a decade ago drove everyone to USPC anyways.
I'm kinda curious about how Cartamundi's soft stock performs in a couple of years as well.