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

Don't know if it'll get released later
Photo source: https://www.instagram.com/madaboutcards/

Had a good haul with AOP mystery decks, but was really hoping for this one. That back is awesome

Like everything AoP aka D$D aka the Buck twins does, it's only a matter of time and price tag, not a question of if it gets released.

Definitely interested though. Anyone some sneak peaks at the card faces?

When I saw the title I was really hoping this would have been an “in world” deck like it had been commissioned for the hotel. It still could have incorporated some story elements (the designer was psychically influenced by the hotel), but not with a blatant scene from the movie. Still pretty cool.

The pessimist in me is thinking the faces will be standard, considering all of the images I have seen have only shown the tuck and card back. This feels like the 007 deck: very promising packaging but geared towards magicians/poker night. That's fine, but I am selfish and I like to see popular IPs handled with a custom approach.

That card back is so amazing.

I just love that carpet pattern.
Danny? Icing on the cake

Got one of these in my mystery decks. Super excited to open these now...

Oooh I'll pick these up for sure. What's underneath the seal ("void if removed" - is that a reference I'm missing??), does anyone know?

Decknowledgy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:47 am I just love that carpet pattern.
Danny? Icing on the cake

Is that a gaff card, or photoshopped? I can't tell

KingfisherZero wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 5:07 pm Got one of these in my mystery decks. Super excited to open these now...

I just watched your mystery deck unboxing, pretty nice pull with this one and the Maker's Reserve.
Can't wait to see the review!

hsbc wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:52 pm Oooh I'll pick these up for sure. What's underneath the seal ("void if removed" - is that a reference I'm missing??), does anyone know?

Decknowledgy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:47 am I just love that carpet pattern.
Danny? Icing on the cake

Is that a gaff card, or photoshopped? I can't tell

I'll do a full look soon, but I will say...the back design is equally stunning in person, and that image at the top is in fact photoshopped. No Danny on the card back.

KingfisherZero wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:35 am
I'll do a full look soon, but I will say...the back design is equally stunning in person, and that image at the top is in fact photoshopped. No Danny on the card back.

If that's true, I retract my complaint. Depending on the approach to the courts, this may be a deck for me to get.

I would love to have Danny on an ad card or double backer though...

No Danny? That's a shame. The Card Guy opened his and confirmed the courts are standard with an odd color scheme to boot.

That's kinda bad news... good news are: I save money.

Review is up on my channel if you want a fuller look! Short version...mostly standard deck beyond what you see above. But I still think it's absolutely a keeper.

Disappointment confirmed. Thanks for the peak at the cards.

UGH. Not nearly as bad as T11 with 007 because I'm assuming that you don't need licensing to use a carpet pattern... BUT STILL. All of these decks need to be redone, properly.

I did this review RIGHT after doing 007, so the licensing comparison was top of mind for me. I was VERY frustrated with T11 just because they clearly got licensing and the character approach was so obviously needed. For the Overlook deck, though...I drew a different conclusion. I like the mystique and the fact that the references are more restrained. It’s still definitely an homage to the movie without beating on it. I think it works on the strength of the back design. Granted, credit goes more to the carpet than D&D for that. My only real problem was the color scheme on the courts. The red and green made it seem inappropriately Christmas-y. But going standard and functional...actually works for me personally.

Don't go crazy over the AoP Overlook deck.

There's an Overlook deck coming to Kickstarter pretty soon, and the creator has teased this since October. Not gonna go into who copied who cos it's irrelevant, both are copies of The Shining's theme and carpet, with the KS one having a two-way back design rather than AoP's one-way (unusable) back.

This is the upcoming KS deck:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CGmclkPMA1o/

Playing cards made it through centuries being one-way on the faces (not to mention even without indices) and now in 2020 one-way backs make cards unusable? Strange times we live in.
So that newer Overlook deck is broken, too? Or is it indeed only a one-way back that makes cards unusable and one-way faces work splendid?

Decknowledgy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 7:36 pm Don't go crazy over the AoP Overlook deck.

There's an Overlook deck coming to Kickstarter pretty soon, and the creator has teased this since October.

Actually, by the looks of it from the IG account, the owner has been teasing this deck for over a year. If you look at the 'Overlook' topic above their posts, they have been showing the back design since last year and were originally going to launch a KS in mid 2020. The maze is also on the back of tuck. Interesting.

Harvonsgard wrote: ↑Fri Dec 25, 2020 1:06 am Playing cards made it through centuries being one-way on the faces (not to mention even without indices) and now in 2020 one-way backs make cards unusable? Strange times we live in.
So that newer Overlook deck is broken, too? Or is it indeed only a one-way back that makes cards unusable and one-way faces work splendid?

Haha, the fresh smell of condescendence after not being able to back up a claim. I didn't say it is the point of your post or the point you wanted to make, yet it's a claim you made that I found interesting.

Decknowledgy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 7:36 pm AoP's one-way (unusable) back.

I kinda knew that I just get a bs answer before asking about it but I always overestimate your ability to see past your bias and staying somewhat objective .

I really can't stand when people throw a black box over the courts' eyes, unless there's some relevance. It just seems like a cheap gimmick to seem edgy. Not entirely sure how/why it fits with an Overlook deck.

Edit: After looking at the Instagram page, the black box makes more sense in a stupid way. Those Olsen Branden pics are more of the same, copying Anyone's court style of just writing the name across the art. It appears that they think courts don't need to reflect the theme of the deck. Why not just go standard courts at that point?

Really no way of knowing if this was a copied design. I mean, the carpet is a somewhat obvious design element that both are built around. But I like the AoP version much better. Borderless design is superior - even if the one way is annoying. And while I wish for SOME court customization, the black box doesn’t do it for me.

KingfisherZero wrote: ↑Fri Dec 25, 2020 12:17 pm Really no way of knowing if this was a copied design. I mean, the carpet is a somewhat obvious design element that both are built around. But I like the AoP version much better. Borderless design is superior - even if the one way is annoying. And while I wish for SOME court customization, the black box doesn’t do it for me.

Yeah, those two were my points as well. I'd say it's a good argument in terms of the borderless aspects of the AoP deck; it's mostly the inflated aftermarket prices that irks me the most, thus providing the second option if anyone here is interested in the carpet and the theme with a fairer price.

Harvonsgard wrote: ↑Fri Dec 25, 2020 7:36 am Haha, the fresh smell of condescendence after not being able to back up a claim. I didn't say it is the point of your post or the point you wanted to make, yet it's a claim you made that I found interesting.

Decknowledgy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 7:36 pm AoP's one-way (unusable) back.

I kinda knew that I just get a bs answer before asking about it but I always overestimate your ability to see past your bias and staying somewhat objective .

No, clearly because it would be plain stupid and foolish on my end to argue with a person having too little interest irl who sought to corner me on an insignificant terminology I used in parenthesis. You deserve BS answers when you comment BS

Merry Christmas btw, if making that attempted smartass debate made you happier.

Decknowledgy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 7:36 pm No, clearly because it would be plain stupid and foolish on my end to argue with a person having too little interest irl who sought to corner me on an insignificant terminology I used in parenthesis. You deserve BS answers when you comment BS.

The irony is strong with this one (especially with a signature like yours). I need some water now, you're so salty that it makes me dehydrate .
An eloquent way to admit your remarks though. If you wanna keep chasing ghosts who clearly aren't there - go on .

Harvonsgard wrote: ↑Fri Dec 25, 2020 2:54 pm The irony is strong with this one (especially with a signature like yours). I need some water now, you're so salty that it makes me dehydrate .
An eloquent way to admit your remarks though. If you wanna keep chasing ghosts who clearly aren't there - go on .

769BDF08-5E0E-449A-A81E-95EAF9495C9E.png

First of all, you're not black yet you love masking your identity with black emojis.


Second, there's no such deck called "Your Mami"; what you're alluding to is pretty obvious.
Third, 420 reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/420_(cannabis_culture)
Fourth, your real location is Faroe Island, and you hide yourself with Paro, Bhutan.

Think people can't spot a troll?
Try harder, joke's on you:


Every time it's you who keeps coming back to derail the thread with your obsession to "correct" a member and can't learn to stfu. I've only copied my comments by request from Sherm from this thread: If An Octupus Could Palm by Dan and Dave. You've ALREADY responded to my comments over there like a normal person. Yet as if you don't know how to stay put, you come over to this thread to respond AGAIN to my copy-paste information, to mock my personal opinion towards one-way backs and to my signature/quote, which aren't significant to the thread whatsoever. No one has taken "(unusable)" literally, only you, as an anchor for your attempt debate. Besides, everyone here knows you're a cardistry fanboy, not that anyone's against that, but your preference and defense for those brands are blatantly clear while calling people who show even the slightest critique of those brands and practices "biased."

You got way too much time on your hands just to be a dedicated keyboard warrior. I've stopped responding to you for a pretty long time. But if you keep coming at me, I'll continue to destroy your fallacy every single time.

(To mods, I'm ending this stupidity here, will respond no more unless topic related)

Decknowledgy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 25, 2020 6:18 pm will respond no more unless topic related

Praised be; much appreciated. Saves me the time to comment the lies you are spreading - which I'm not really concerned anyone takes serious but better safe than sorry. You should never underestimate the power of bad mouthing/rumors.

And no Ted, this is not me coming at or after you, this is setting the record straight, for people reading what you spread.
Grow up war-terminology-boy, it is/was never a me-vs-you. None is trying to corner you. You're literally acting like the guy that aggresively - prepared for throwing a fist - asks if you looked at his girl friend when just letting your eyes wandering around in a bar... wtf?
Learn to acknowledge and live with the fact that people are, express themselves and act different.
If you wanna keep a thread on track, then simply stop projecting your negative interpretation and personal gripes with my way of expressing myself, into my posts.
It's not about you, just because I refer to something you wrote or my post is after yours in the chronological order.
This is a forum, a public place for an open dialogue/discourse (Do I really have to explain that to a PhD?). So again, even if I refer or directly quote something you (or others for that matter - since you seem to take personal offense there quite some times as well) wrote, it's not about you (or others).
Even more important, questioning something does not equal argueing/condoning/mocking or judging it, nor is it equal or is meant to condone/judge or mock the person inhereting those points of view (sad that I appearantly have to explain that to someone above 18 over and over again).

Coming to the lies/misconceptions/fallacies (which again, is solely to not let them uncommented and purely rhetorical - thanks in advance for sticking to quoted part above)

* I, not handing out private information on the internet per default, is neither trolling nor hiding. What kind of mental gymnastics is that? It just gets topped by assuming the location on my instagram handle is my true location ... for real ? If you payed attention to what I wrote over the years (instead of obviously pulling stuff out of thin air) you would know where I actually live. Not that you would or should care anyways, so what would be the point again in using my actual location?
* I, being supportive for cannabis/drug (which aren't illegal in certain countries) culture is not trolling either. Do you really believe I do count my decks and refresh the number on my profile every day/week/month? But then I'm the troll for asking about something you literally wrote (not the mention that, kind of the whole point of sincerely asking is getting closer to certainty about something that is in question)?
* I, using literally everything in dark mode is not trolling/hiding either.
* Your mama jokes in my profile!? Old but gold, haha. Left there for people sniffing around and taking internet profiles too serious. Is that a crime? If that is considered trolling then I'm guilty as charged in this particular case, no harm intended.

Happy -day to everyone else.

So, uh, I wonder what the tuck looks like for the second deck. The AoP one is really nice!