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

I am hypnotized....must buy decks...now!....Or maybe not.

This puts a new spin on bad.

I've stopped myself from backing this several times.

I don't want this deck. I don't even like it. But I've got this compulsion to get it. Then I saw EPCC and I'm like... Nah. I'm not paying those prices for a deck I don't even really like printed by EPCC.

I kinda wish they would stop referring to these types of decks as playing cards. To me these are not playing cards, they are strictly cardist cards. Am I wrong in thinking that in order to be playing cards they should have the number and court cards?

I would rather chop a potato into 52 pieces, draw on them and do anything with those, than with these.

flyers3003 wrote:I kinda wish they would stop referring to these types of decks as playing cards. To me these are not playing cards, they are strictly cardist cards. Am I wrong in thinking that in order to be playing cards they should have the number and court cards?

This.

I'm also a fan of how they label it Green Edition and look forward to the 50 lazy palette swaps to come.

Ok, we get it, we've seen it on every cardistry KS: the lines on the edges make some "great" fans (even though this deck doesn't imo). And the circle in the center of the design makes a "mesmerizing" visual effect on card spins.
But aren't these cardists' requirements impossible to obtain with a nice looking back design? Or a cool theme?

And +1 on flyers3003's comment also.

I just moved from the Bay Area to Idaho and when I saw the name of this deck in the thread I thought I might get it b/c of the whole Idaho potato thing, but besides the name, there is nothing that motivates me to buy it. Too bad. I guess I will have to seek out a fly fishing deck.

I'll be the minority here. I really like this deck.
Yes, it's a cardistry deck, so it's going to get the usual harsh treatment around here.
But judging this AS a cardistry deck, and AS a hype deck, I think it hits all the notes correctly.

I'm a fan of indexless/faceless cards for cardistry, similar to Cardistry Touch, Virts, SOCs, etc... so this is right up my alley.
The design is good, the color scheme is good, I like the amazing use of the ambigram as the back design.

I mean, just compare these to some of the standard "vector vomit" cardistry decks that have been pouring in and you should be able to see the difference in effort and quality right away.

As for the printer, I am seriously confused why everyone keeps reacting so negatively. For small print runs, USPCC is a bad thing, and even for large print runs, cardistry preferences tend to lean toward EPCC over USPCC depending on the stock chosen, I don't get why people don't get that: card playing stock isn't necessarily ideal as an extreme handling stock. Especially for cardistry decks, you can't say USPCC > everything. Two of my favorite handling decks in the recent past are not printed by them (Fox Targets and Purple Ravn), so putting EPCC in the negative column without knowing anything else is a short-sighted position to take when evaluating a cardistry deck.

I have $1 USPCC decks that I've abused for months that are fine. I have $20 EPCC decks that click and clump after a week. And that's a consistent pattern I've found. I'm happy to get EPCC decks. I'm not happy to pay $20 a deck when it's for a deck I don't absolutely love.

shaitani wrote:As for the printer, I am seriously confused why everyone keeps reacting so negatively. For small print runs, USPCC is a bad thing, and even for large print runs, cardistry preferences tend to lean toward EPCC over USPCC depending on the stock chosen, I don't get why people don't get that: card playing stock isn't necessarily ideal as an extreme handling stock. Especially for cardistry decks, you can't say USPCC > everything. Two of my favorite handling decks in the recent past are not printed by them (Fox Targets and Purple Ravn), so putting EPCC in the negative column without knowing anything else is a short-sighted position to take when evaluating a cardistry deck.

When it comes to finish, USPCC > everything. EPCC is getting better and better, but this is still the case. And finish is kind of a big deal when it comes to cardistry, much more than stock.

The finish on the Purple Haze Ravn's from Cartamundi were fantastic. The stock was a little flimsier than I'd prefer, but only by a hair. The finish was really nice though.

MagikFingerz wrote:

shaitani wrote:As for the printer, I am seriously confused why everyone keeps reacting so negatively. For small print runs, USPCC is a bad thing, and even for large print runs, cardistry preferences tend to lean toward EPCC over USPCC depending on the stock chosen, I don't get why people don't get that: card playing stock isn't necessarily ideal as an extreme handling stock. Especially for cardistry decks, you can't say USPCC > everything. Two of my favorite handling decks in the recent past are not printed by them (Fox Targets and Purple Ravn), so putting EPCC in the negative column without knowing anything else is a short-sighted position to take when evaluating a cardistry deck.

When it comes to finish, USPCC > everything. EPCC is getting better and better, but this is still the case. And finish is kind of a big deal when it comes to cardistry, much more than stock.

That's a good point, finish is important and USPCC is great at it, and I'd agree with you that at least for the "slipperier" finishes, they are the best (although as vedus mentioned, that Cartamundi Ravn finish is right up there and some might prefer it). But consider that different finishes are important from a preference point of view. Some cardists like the smoother/slipperier finish, some like it a little more rough, and there's many degrees of variation in between. They can each have advantages and disadvantages with respect to which types of moves are being performed. So, absolutely, USPCC has amazing finish on their cards, but considering personal preference, and considering the stock + finish + cut + registration + designs + etc picture as a whole, the total equation becomes pretty unclear.

I guess I'm just saying, for cardistry, you can't look at the tuck, see USPCC, and say, oh yeah this is the best. I've opened up some Bicycles and been incredibly disappointed with how they handle even for general playability and I've opened up some EPCC decks and been blown away by the handling.

Regarding clicking, I can't even figure out the pattern with that, I know this is anecdotal but I feel like I've had USPCC decks that do that too, I've definitely had Cartamundi and EPCC decks do it. I feel like it's a function of the environment/moisture/altitude/atmospheric pressure/etc..., that might be a fundamental property of paper traveling... So in that sense, if you buy a deck that was made relatively close to where you live, your deck might be more 'ready to go' out of the box, so that's definitely a factor to consider, just not one I personally have enough sample data to understand the cause of.

shaitani wrote:some like it a little more rough

That's what she said

But yes, for the most part I agree with everything you said. One last thing though: A deck that's too slippery for someone's taste can be made less slippery through breaking it in or using fanning powder, the opposite is much harder to achieve (if not impossible).

shaitani wrote:As for the printer, I am seriously confused why everyone keeps reacting so negatively. For small print runs, USPCC is a bad thing, and even for large print runs, cardistry preferences tend to lean toward EPCC over USPCC depending on the stock chosen, I don't get why people don't get that: card playing stock isn't necessarily ideal as an extreme handling stock.

This is news to me. At the end of the day, people will have their own personal preferences of course, and I even know a few cardists who actually prefer EPCC decks (they are into packet cuts and aerials but not into fanning). But to say cardistry preferences are leaning towards EPCC over USPCC is about as accurate as Trump's State of the Union address. I have a suspicion that the primary reason why any cardistry decks are made by EPCC at all is cost. I know I've said this many times already, but it is empirical evidence: The vast majority of the elite cardists who have produced their own signature decks that bear their names or reputations use the USPCC. Jaspas is the only high level cardist I know of that has his signature deck printed by LPCC. The Virts, Dan & Dave, De'Vo, NONE of them use any printer other than the USPCC. Andrei Jikh and Dimitry Arleri have both been on record at T11 voicing their preference for USPCC decks for cardistry. If it really is true that cardistry preferences are actually leaning towards EPCC over USPCC, then why don't we see more elite cardists printing with the Asian printers? Why is it that most of the cardistry tutorials feature USPCC decks?

Azazaaz wrote:Ok, we get it, we've seen it on every cardistry KS: the lines on the edges make some "great" fans (even though this deck doesn't imo). And the circle in the center of the design makes a "mesmerizing" visual effect on card spins.
But aren't these cardists' requirements impossible to obtain with a nice looking back design? Or a cool theme?

And +1 on flyers3003's comment also.

I completely agree with this. It's a shame cardistry design shifted to basically lazy color-blocked geometric patterns. While there are definitely fundamental rules in cardistry design, I wish designers would make more effort in incorporating these fundamental rules into more artistic designs.