UnitedCardists.com - The forum for Cardistry, Magic, Custom Decks and All Things Playing Cards.

For comparison, here's what the courts would look like using all 3 colors for all suits...

Hoping to relaunch soon...

Please check out the Kickstarter preview:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/go ... n=399b4fae" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

davegk wrote:For comparison, here's what the courts would look like using all 3 colors for all suits...

bauhaus-6.png

nice! Loving the new font.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The white, orange, purple, pink is definitely the more unique color!

Your EB 6 decks says 24 decks instead of 6 decks

Sad to not see a 3 deck EB.

While I'm still not a fan of the green on white for the tuck box design, I am definitely in.

I'd like to see a higher contrast in color in the gradient color scheme of the Cambio deck. The purple/pink gradient as is will blur into a monotone color when in motion. I'd also like to see a slightly larger dot in the center of the back design. I can't believe this was voted as the favorite design from the previous campaign. I think the work you put into the other two decks still make this set pledgeable.

Okay, I've been collecting more feedback and doing more experimenting and I have new deck design that may feel pretty nostalgic for some of you...inspired by Memphis style art from the early 90s and using the blown-up courts from the eye deck...

Looks like the logo background to a 90s after school tv show, like Saved by the Bell. Or maybe a Trapper Keeper. In fact it reminds me of something specific that I can't quite put my finger on.

This is not a bad thing! This is a style I haven't seen in ages.

That deck + 8-Bit Deck + Jazz Stripes = 90s brick. You have my attention, Sir!

macstrat wrote:That deck + 8-Bit Deck + Jazz Stripes = 90s brick. You have my attention, Sir!

How about a Tetris-inspired design?

Damn it, stop trying to cash in on my era's nostalgia! But it's working. Will have to see how well you integrate the theme with the pips and courts. Really like the Memphis style art with the diagonal courts. Standard but creative.

Keep this up and I'll have to relook at my budget to be able back the whole cardistry set when you relaunch.

I don't know Dave, I have a feeling that you need to share more of your designs with forums or reddits with more cardistry enthusiasts. The scene of cardistry is more or less like fashion, and you never know how those f [k] o l [d]k [s] s will react to the design. I suggest making a few and ask around.

A few more ideas I'm toying with...

The "Super S" or "Stussy S" comes from this phenomenon:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gqkj ... what-is-it

davegk wrote:A few more ideas I'm toying with...

The "Super S" or "Stussy S" comes from this phenomenon:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gqkj ... what-is-it

super.jpg

rainbow.jpg

drops.jpg

so much better than your first ones, I'm really interested in what the faces look nice. I hope they're custom

A lot of the feedback I've gotten is that people want to see more standard-like courts so I'm trying to keep it much closer to a standard deck in general, but here's a more blinged-out back along with a slightly modified standard king...

Oh I love this graffitti art so much!!

Most of these are art decks, or nostalgia decks. Just don't call them cardistry decks. . . .

sinjin7 wrote:Most of these are art decks, or nostalgia decks. Just don't call them cardistry decks. . . .

Heh...apparently people have many different opinions on what a "cardistry" deck is...curious how you define it

davegk wrote:A lot of the feedback I've gotten is that people want to see more standard-like courts

super-s-king.jpg

Where?

davegk wrote:

sinjin7 wrote:Most of these are art decks, or nostalgia decks. Just don't call them cardistry decks. . . .

Heh...apparently people have many different opinions on what a "cardistry" deck is...curious how you define it

In a broad sense, ANY deck can be a deck suitable for cardistry. Then there are cardistry decks, or decks specifically designed primarily for cardistry purposes. There are two components to cardistry-specifice decks: 1) the design itself, and 2) the handling, which is comprised of paper stock and finish. Let me get the handling component out of the way since you're probably more interested in design.

Any stock that is stiff is suitable for cardistry, both because they allow for the appropriate amount of snap necessary for many cardistry maneuvers and for durability. Generally the stiffer the better while not at the cost of getting the overall deck too thick. It's far better to have a deck too stiff at first that can be broken in to suit individual tastes as opposed to a deck that is too soft to start with, because there's nowhere to go from there. Every single major manufacturer (USPCC, EPCC/LPCC, Carta Mundi) use card stock that is reliably durable and suitable for cardsitry. As far as finish goes, you want a combination of slippery and consistent. Again, it's better to have a deck that's too slippery but can be tamed by either fanning powder or breaking in to suit individual tastes and styles, as opposed to a deck that lacks sufficient slip. But as important as slip is consistency. You can have a deck that feels "slippery" enough but they aren't consistent, so while they may fan relatively easily, they don't fan evenly resulting in unattractive fans with cards inconsistently spaced apart. Stick with USPCC's Air Cushion or Magic finish for cardistry-specific decks and you will not get any complaints from any legit cardist out there.

So this brings us to design for cardistry-specific decks. Here are the cardistry design "rules":

1 - Back designs that are bold, either in pattern and/or color, that look dynamic in motion and in videos.
2 - Twin tipped corner design elements, on both the front and back of cards, for maximum fanning options.
3 - Circular center design that can be featured in card spins and aerials.
4 - Unique pip arrangements for enhanced visibility in motion or spins.
5 - Bordered backs, preferably thin borders. Irregular borders also can result in very interesting fans and spreads as well. Full-bleed backs are erroneously thought to make good cardistry decks, but that isn't always true. Borders serve to define well executed fans and spreads, while full-bleed backs generally mask uneven fans, which may be good for those lacking in fanning skills, but busy full-bleed backs often look muddled in both fans and packet cut routines.

You don't have to have every rule incorporated into every deck, but you have to have at least some, if not most, of these rules in your design or it's really not a cardistry specific deck. Not all cardistry decks should look like cookie cutter imitations of each other, these rules can be applied in creative ways so that you can have a plentiful variety in styles.

With all due credit and apologies to De'Vo, the Virts were the first designers to create a deck that was first and foremost made for cardistry that became really big and crossed over to the collecting world. It wasn't a perfect cardistry deck (the back borders were egregiously fat),and yes, it was a color-blocked geometric patterned back, but actual thought went into every design aspect with cardistry being the primary consideration. What should have been a welcome first step in the advancement of cardistry deck design instead turned into a template for unimaginative and lazy copycat design. Another unwelcome development was the proliferation of dumbed-down, minimalist courts. So instead of an aesthetic evolution of good design rooted in the cardisty rules, you have a stagnation of the lowest common denominator where any color-blocked geometric back design coupled with dreadful minimalist courts can be passed off as a "cardistry" deck.

As I stated in my first post in this thread, most of your decks in the first KS campaigns weren't good cardistry decks, or not cardistry decks at all. After you cancelled your campaign, you tried to shift away from that lowest common denominator and I felt you were making good progress with your Eye deck. But you're slipping back to what you were producing in the first campaign. In what way do these recent decks enhance the art of cardiistry? What is it about the back designs that are conducive to standing out in a Sybil variation? How are you tipping the 8 corners of a card to accentuate both regular and reversed fans, much less face in, face out, or giant fans? Do you have design elements on the sides of your cards to enhance spreads and cascades? How are you designing your courts and pips to stand out in a packet routine from all angles? Do you have a visual element that will stand out in a card spin or aerial? If your deck has a positive and affirmative answer to all these questions, then you have a cardistry deck. If you deck doesn't answer these questions, you may have an art deck or nostalgia deck, but not a cardistry deck.

I want to close by getting back to how I initially answered your question about how I define a cardistry deck. ANY deck can be a cardsitry deck, and this is what I mean when I say that: the perfect cardistry deck for me doesn't look like a "cardistry" deck. It's a fully custom deck with a back design as beautiful as any produced by Lotrek or Lorenzo. It has court cards as exquisite as any designed by Jackson or Uusi. It looks like a beautiful deck that fits in perfectly in my collection of high end custom decks, with enough practical utility to be shown off and used at poker night. But when I play around with it I realize the back design is dynamic enough to show well in cardistry manipulations, and there are varied design elements in the corners to make multiple different types of interesting fans, and when I flick an aerial, I see a bold pattern form unexpectedly in the center of the spinning card. It is then I realize that this beautifully designed fully custom deck is actually a great deck for cardistry! THIS is the perfect cardsitry deck for me - a deck beautifully designed with all the cardistry design rules artistically and cleverly incorporated into it. NOT a color-blocked, generic geometric patterned boring deck with ugly minimalist courts that is unfortunately now readily associated with, and passed off as, the typical cardsitry deck these days.

Based on what I’ve noticed over the past couple years, there’s one main bullet point that makes a Deck considered as a Cardistry Deck for the Cardistry kids:

It’s “designed” by someone in the Cardistry community. Period.

I think Pintson is the only actual designer in the Cardistry community. Everything else is just minimal clipart caliber designs, head-to-head logos, or basic geometric shapes / patterns.

Thanks, Randy

davegk wrote:A lot of the feedback I've gotten is that people want to see more standard-like courts so I'm trying to keep it much closer to a standard deck in general, but here's a more blinged-out back along with a slightly modified standard king...

super-s-king.jpg

Damn, I actually love that back design! Also for some reason the rainbow one above. If they had nice tucks I'd be in for sure.

As for standard courts, meh. The colors here dont look bad but I'd prefer if you did the enlarged, off the card and off axis ones you've shown before.

Sent from my Galaxy 8 using Tapatalk

RandyButterfield wrote:Based on what I’ve noticed over the past couple years, there’s one main bullet point that makes a Deck considered as a Cardistry Deck for the Cardistry kids:

It’s “designed” by someone in the Cardistry community. Period.

I think Pintson is the only actual designer in the Cardistry community. Everything else is just minimal clipart caliber designs, head-to-head logos, or basic geometric shapes / patterns.

Thanks, Randy

I like this description too. Basically, decks with no really design and hyped by and for the cardist community.

These last 2 S and rainbow designs are really great though. Would need to be a similarly thoughtfully designed tuck though. Not just a plain glossy green and white design solely for marking them as part of a set or series.

Sent from my Galaxy 8 using Tapatalk

RandyButterfield wrote:It’s “designed” by someone in the Cardistry community. Period.

Definetly an important point. I saw this back in the days when adidas and nike started their skateboard shoes. Almost everybody in the skate scene bashed on them because everybody thought (which is true to a certain point) that the big companies now wanna cash in on something that starts to be a new market. Nowadays nobody cares anymore because adidas and nike have invested in growing the scene and most skaters are cool with adidas and nike now.

By the way, I would stop talking down on designs that are designed by cardists (maybe I misinterpreted the quotation marks). It doesn't serve any purpose other than showing that the person who bashes on them knows nothing about cardistry and the cardistry scene. Just because someone has put sweat and tears into something doesn't make it better than other designs. Some designer often seem to forget that usability and purpose are a part of design as well. Just my 2 cents.

sinjin7 wrote:

davegk wrote:

sinjin7 wrote:Most of these are art decks, or nostalgia decks. Just don't call them cardistry decks. . . .

Heh...apparently people have many different opinions on what a "cardistry" deck is...curious how you define it

In a broad sense, ANY deck can be a deck suitable for cardistry. Then there are cardistry decks, or decks specifically designed primarily for cardistry purposes. There are two components to cardistry-specifice decks: 1) the design itself, and 2) the handling, which is comprised of paper stock and finish. Let me get the handling component out of the way since you're probably more interested in design.

Any stock that is stiff is suitable for cardistry, both because they allow for the appropriate amount of snap necessary for many cardistry maneuvers and for durability. Generally the stiffer the better while not at the cost of getting the overall deck too thick. It's far better to have a deck too stiff at first that can be broken in to suit individual tastes as opposed to a deck that is too soft to start with, because there's nowhere to go from there. Every single major manufacturer (USPCC, EPCC/LPCC, Carta Mundi) use card stock that is reliably durable and suitable for cardsitry. As far as finish goes, you want a combination of slippery and consistent. Again, it's better to have a deck that's too slippery but can be tamed by either fanning powder or breaking in to suit individual tastes and styles, as opposed to a deck that lacks sufficient slip. But as important as slip is consistency. You can have a deck that feels "slippery" enough but they aren't consistent, so while they may fan relatively easily, they don't fan evenly resulting in unattractive fans with cards inconsistently spaced apart. Stick with USPCC's Air Cushion or Magic finish for cardistry-specific decks and you will not get any complaints from any legit cardist out there.

So this brings us to design for cardistry-specific decks. Here are the cardistry design "rules":

1 - Back designs that are bold, either in pattern and/or color, that look dynamic in motion and in videos.
2 - Twin tipped corner design elements, on both the front and back of cards, for maximum fanning options.
3 - Circular center design that can be featured in card spins and aerials.
4 - Unique pip arrangements for enhanced visibility in motion or spins.
5 - Bordered backs, preferably thin borders. Irregular borders also can result in very interesting fans and spreads as well. Full-bleed backs are erroneously thought to make good cardistry decks, but that isn't always true. Borders serve to define well executed fans and spreads, while full-bleed backs generally mask uneven fans, which may be good for those lacking in fanning skills, but busy full-bleed backs often look muddled in both fans and packet cut routines.

You don't have to have every rule incorporated into every deck, but you have to have at least some, if not most, of these rules in your design or it's really not a cardistry specific deck. Not all cardistry decks should look like cookie cutter imitations of each other, these rules can be applied in creative ways so that you can have a plentiful variety in styles.

With all due credit and apologies to De'Vo, the Virts were the first designers to create a deck that was first and foremost made for cardistry that became really big and crossed over to the collecting world. It wasn't a perfect cardistry deck (the back borders were egregiously fat),and yes, it was a color-blocked geometric patterned back, but actual thought went into every design aspect with cardistry being the primary consideration. What should have been a welcome first step in the advancement of cardistry deck design instead turned into a template for unimaginative and lazy copycat design. Another unwelcome development was the proliferation of dumbed-down, minimalist courts. So instead of an aesthetic evolution of good design rooted in the cardisty rules, you have a stagnation of the lowest common denominator where any color-blocked geometric back design coupled with dreadful minimalist courts can be passed off as a "cardistry" deck.

As I stated in my first post in this thread, most of your decks in the first KS campaigns weren't good cardistry decks, or not cardistry decks at all. After you cancelled your campaign, you tried to shift away from that lowest common denominator and I felt you were making good progress with your Eye deck. But you're slipping back to what you were producing in the first campaign. In what way do these recent decks enhance the art of cardiistry? What is it about the back designs that are conducive to standing out in a Sybil variation? How are you tipping the 8 corners of a card to accentuate both regular and reversed fans, much less face in, face out, or giant fans? Do you have design elements on the sides of your cards to enhance spreads and cascades? How are you designing your courts and pips to stand out in a packet routine from all angles? Do you have a visual element that will stand out in a card spin or aerial? If your deck has a positive and affirmative answer to all these questions, then you have a cardistry deck. If you deck doesn't answer these questions, you may have an art deck or nostalgia deck, but not a cardistry deck.

I want to close by getting back to how I initially answered your question about how I define a cardistry deck. ANY deck can be a cardsitry deck, and this is what I mean when I say that: the perfect cardistry deck for me doesn't look like a "cardistry" deck. It's a fully custom deck with a back design as beautiful as any produced by Lotrek or Lorenzo. It has court cards as exquisite as any designed by Jackson or Uusi. It looks like a beautiful deck that fits in perfectly in my collection of high end custom decks, with enough practical utility to be shown off and used at poker night. But when I play around with it I realize the back design is dynamic enough to show well in cardistry manipulations, and there are varied design elements in the corners to make multiple different types of interesting fans, and when I flick an aerial, I see a bold pattern form unexpectedly in the center of the spinning card. It is then I realize that this beautifully designed fully custom deck is actually a great deck for cardistry! THIS is the perfect cardsitry deck for me - a deck beautifully designed with all the cardistry design rules artistically and cleverly incorporated into it. NOT a color-blocked, generic geometric patterned boring deck with ugly minimalist courts that is unfortunately now readily associated with, and passed off as, the typical cardsitry deck these days.

Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful explanation! I think the Eye design shown previously in this thread follows all the rules you've listed, the one exception being that the border is broken in multiple spots for twin-tips that look cool in fans but the white semi-border also lend itself to clear delineation for packet cuts. The other designs follow fewer of the rules but I'll try to add plenty of variety from deck to deck.

Also, looking at feedback that I've received, there is a difference between a well-designed cardistry deck and designs that cardists actually want to buy. I feel pretty good about the designs I've chosen for the relaunch of the campaign and built in the collaborative/voting aspect for deck #3 to even better gauge what it is that my specific backers want to see in the design. Hopefully this will lead to even better results for the next 3 decks in the series and I have some ideas about how to mesh the differences between these competing directives.

I'm also excited to attend this year's cardistry-con and meet members of the community. I understand that cardistry decks are defined as such by having been created by someone in the community but I'm hoping to connect with cardists and work with them to create decks that they really would like to have in their toolbox.

Cardistry Club relaunches tomorrow (June 1st) at 11am PST! Preview the campaign here:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/go ... n=399b4fae

I'm loving the two designs you're starting with

Ummmmm......

Somehow this is what pulled up when I clicked the link lmao!

Sent from my Galaxy 8 using Tapatalk

Hmm...try the link again now...

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/go ... n=399b4fae