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

I've seen this talked about but decided to start an official thread here. A Lorenzo & Lotrek collaboration for The Gentleman Wake:

The kickstarter campaign will be in March (date to be decided). Tuckboxes printed by Oath Playing Cards (Lotrek). These are just a prototypes, small fixes and adds will be made.

I'm a big fan of Lorenzo's work but even with TGW and Lotrek collaborating, there's just something ... I just don't like about these decks ... *puts this project on the wait and see pile*

I love the deck, the creators, designers and manufacturers. This is in my “ready to fund” stack.

I don’t dislike what I’ve seen of this deck per se, but I do dislike the tuck.

It bothers me that there is no definition around the gold text - I feel that improvements here would greatly benefit the overall feel. A good deal has been borrowed from the David Blaine “split spades” series but hey, there isn’t a great amount design wise nowadays that is truly original

It's the bottom half of the tuck I don't like.

portcullis wrote:It's the bottom half of the tuck I don't like.

Overall I find the tuck to be AMAZING but if any of it needs work I agree, it's the bottom half. And the backs are reminiscent of Split Spades but I love it.

The back design looks good. The overall tuck look is good. IMO the "fonts" on the tuck make it look childish and weird. I would suggest a redo.

TwoPiece wrote:The back design looks good. The overall tuck look is good. IMO the "fonts" on the tuck make it look childish and weird. I would suggest a redo.

I do not think that the font or the tuck look childish but with all the lettering on the tuck, it definitely looks a tad too busy. The whole “for playing card collectors, etc.” may be moved to an extra card or something that will free up the space on the tuck. That said, I can see why the creators may want to keep it on the tuck.

I like it. It helps that the team involved are all great guys.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't critique and make sure they produce this to the best spec possible, but I like the design.

I actually like the Parlour font - reminds me of early 20th century circus and carnival signage and fits the theme. It wouldn't look out of place on a magician's promo poster in the 20s.

I could get Ale to give some constructive criticism seeing as she's the artist of the family, but as a fan I like it. I may not know art, but I know what I like and all that...

Easy pledge for me based on the people involved but I'm sure they're glad for constructive feedback to get it as good as it can be.

I do like this deck, even with the standardish custom courts.

I do love these tucks, the only things I would like to see different on them would be a different shaped thumb cutout and copper foil on the blue deck instead of gold. Perhaps even silver.

Sent from my Galaxy 8 using Tapatalk

Hi all. Thanks for starting this thread and contributing to it.

I have my fingers crossed it will do well. Although I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t a little bit nervous. Haha.

I agree that there are inspirations taken from the split spade. But I think that’s been true of other card producers especially Madison. Having said that we purposefully invert the spades (top point in) to make the design a bit different from Blaine’s masterpiece. I just fell in love with the TGW monogram spade as soon as I saw it.

Regarding tuck I think we still have some time to make minor adjustments. I think the tuck flap cutout may just be one change we make. Regarding copper foil on the blue not sure if Lorenzo would go for that.

There is also this...





Gold cold foil deluxe version as a stretch goal.

Also please do continue to leave honest feedback! Don’t let my participation in this thread stifle anyone!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Sweet Christ...

I really like everything about these, so far, other than the front of the tuck. It just doesn't seem to fit everything else about the deck. I understand what you're going for with the differing text styles - but it just doesn't work. Something has to give.

Consider who the critic is here.

One thing I am curious about is the spelling of Parlour. I mean I spell it like that all the time so it didn't strike me until now, but I was under the impression that that's not the US preferred spelling. Are you using it to evoke an old-fashioned vibe?

Definitely, want those gold beetle backs!

Sent from my Galaxy 8 using Tapatalk

Chiming in, I think the typography works when it is on the ad card, but as others have mentioned, it doesn't translate well to the front of the tuck. Won't stop me from pledging, but wanted you to have one more opinion to weigh if you were thinking about redesigning it.

Likewise, I'm in regardless of one or two quibbles.

Mmmm. Quibbles....

As much as I like this series, I keep having this "blue is too blue, red is too red, only black is just right" vibe, but I can't describe what's the problem with it (shrug)

My 2 cents on the spelling of "Parlour": British people spell everything wrong. But since TGW is British, when in Rome! I don't care either way.
My 2 cents on the tuck/font: the top half looks great. I would lose the whole bottom half and just come up with a fancy little design. Everyone knows what playing cards are for, no need for the explanation.
My 2 cents on the colors (or should I say "colours"): I love all 3. And IMO gold foil works with all 3. Especially the black back which I wish were USPCC MetalLuxe but oh well, cold foil (I'm assuming from Cart?) will look great. My wallet wishes there were only 1 deck but I would back all 3.

vasta41 wrote:My 2 cents on the spelling of "Parlour": British people spell everything wrong. But since TGW is British, when in Rome! I don't care either way.
My 2 cents on the tuck/font: the top half looks great. I would lose the whole bottom half and just come up with a fancy little design. Everyone knows what playing cards are for, no need for the explanation.
My 2 cents on the colors (or should I say "colours"): I love all 3. And IMO gold foil works with all 3. Especially the black back which I wish were USPCC MetalLuxe but oh well, cold foil (I'm assuming from Cart?) will look great. My wallet wishes there were only 1 deck but I would back all 3.

TGW is British? I'm suddenly very confused. My thoughts on the use of "parlour" is that it evokes the old timey feel that TGW seems to go for, same with the text on the bottom of the tuck. Imagine it's the late 1800s or early 1900s and a traveling salesman rolls through town on his caravan, he's a bit of a dandy but his wares are fascinating. Amongst the curiosities he has for sale you see a beautiful deck of cards, golden and black. Now in this scenario it makes perfect sense for them to say "The Parlour" as it adds an air of mystique and class which is sure to be enough to get you to pay the high price of one whole quarter.

CupcakeBaron wrote:

vasta41 wrote:My 2 cents on the spelling of "Parlour": British people spell everything wrong. But since TGW is British, when in Rome! I don't care either way.
My 2 cents on the tuck/font: the top half looks great. I would lose the whole bottom half and just come up with a fancy little design. Everyone knows what playing cards are for, no need for the explanation.
My 2 cents on the colors (or should I say "colours"): I love all 3. And IMO gold foil works with all 3. Especially the black back which I wish were USPCC MetalLuxe but oh well, cold foil (I'm assuming from Cart?) will look great. My wallet wishes there were only 1 deck but I would back all 3.

TGW is British? I'm suddenly very confused. My thoughts on the use of "parlour" is that it evokes the old timey feel that TGW seems to go for, same with the text on the bottom of the tuck. Imagine it's the late 1800s or early 1900s and a traveling salesman rolls through town on his caravan, he's a bit of a dandy but his wares are fascinating. Amongst the curiosities he has for sale you see a beautiful deck of cards, golden and black. Now in this scenario it makes perfect sense for them to say "The Parlour" as it adds an air of mystique and class which is sure to be enough to get you to pay the high price of one whole quarter.

Sure, you could be right. Or maybe we both are. Just an opinion!

vasta41 wrote:

CupcakeBaron wrote:

vasta41 wrote:My 2 cents on the spelling of "Parlour": British people spell everything wrong. But since TGW is British, when in Rome! I don't care either way.
My 2 cents on the tuck/font: the top half looks great. I would lose the whole bottom half and just come up with a fancy little design. Everyone knows what playing cards are for, no need for the explanation.
My 2 cents on the colors (or should I say "colours"): I love all 3. And IMO gold foil works with all 3. Especially the black back which I wish were USPCC MetalLuxe but oh well, cold foil (I'm assuming from Cart?) will look great. My wallet wishes there were only 1 deck but I would back all 3.

TGW is British? I'm suddenly very confused. My thoughts on the use of "parlour" is that it evokes the old timey feel that TGW seems to go for, same with the text on the bottom of the tuck. Imagine it's the late 1800s or early 1900s and a traveling salesman rolls through town on his caravan, he's a bit of a dandy but his wares are fascinating. Amongst the curiosities he has for sale you see a beautiful deck of cards, golden and black. Now in this scenario it makes perfect sense for them to say "The Parlour" as it adds an air of mystique and class which is sure to be enough to get you to pay the high price of one whole quarter.

Sure, you could be right. Or maybe we both are. Just an opinion!

I like the option where we're both right, everyone's a winner!

vasta41 wrote:British people spell everything wrong.

But of course we do - alongside with the rest of the former British Empire countries. [emoji12]

It's obvious that TGW is not from Britain. I mean, just listen to him! His South Carolina accent is unmistakable!

Speaking of unmistakes...

I haven't seen the entire miniseries yet, but YouTube just highlighted for me a scene from the John Adams miniseries, where JA first meets King George III, shortly after the war for independence has concluded. Just that one scene. Oh. My. Goodness. The tension was so freakin' thick. Amazing acting, amazing writing, expert direction, just really... and, when you think about that moment in time, you realize: how could it not be?

So many layers to that one conversation.

Which is all by way of saying, thanks to the war for independence, we were able to take "u" out of the parlor!

Ahem.

rousselle wrote:It's obvious that TGW is not from Britain. I mean, just listen to him! His South Carolina accent is unmistakable!

TGW is British?

I thought he was a... Masshole.

ICantShuffle wrote:I thought he was a... Masshole.

Why's that?

Decknowledgy wrote:

ICantShuffle wrote:I thought he was a... Masshole.

Why's that?

I think that was directed at me.

It actually sounds more like he could be from Western PA or, more likely, Greater Los Angeles area.

Or, maybe someone who grew up in Western PA, but moved to Los Angeles.

rofl you guys! I'm pretty sure it's a south Florida/Miami accent. At this point I can't tell if I'm ruining a running joke or not

south Florida/Miami accent

Y'know, you might be right. I didn't think about that.

I thought of West PA, because he speaks very similarly to someone I knew from a suburb of Pittsburg.