Transformation vs semi-transformation decks

Unread post by **guru** » Wed Feb 28, 2018 6:00 am

Hey Guys,

Can someone please enlighten me on the difference between transformation vs semi-transformation decks?

In the strict sense of the word ‘Transformation’ the pips should be in their standard positions and form part of, or fit into, the overall image portrayed on the card while a semi-transformation deck usually take certain liberties in terms of pip positioning. Am I right or is there anything else that needs to be taken into account?

Given that the number cards are usually one way, there is no compulsion to have 2-way courts, correct? What are the examples of pure transformation decks post 1990? Appreciate any insights on this.

Regards,
Sunish

Unread post by **MagikFingerz** » Wed Feb 28, 2018 7:16 am

I smell a GPCC transformation deck in the works...

Your definition is what I've understood the difference to be, but someone more knowledgable than me should eventually chime in.

ecNate · Unread post by **ecNate** » Wed Feb 28, 2018 11:00 am

Your statement is correct - http://www.wopc.co.uk/transformation "In the strict sense of the word ‘Transformation’ the pips should be in their standard positions and form part of, or fit into, the overll image portrayed on the card."

Another way to look at is originally people would transform the existing cards into art, which means the pips are in standard position and courts 2 way because they were ordinary cards they drew on to transform them. Later decks were printed in this style, but this really limited the results without changing pip position/shape/color/etc.
http://www.wopc.co.uk/usa/uspcc/vanity-fair

Because of this limitation the semi-transformation style (Natalia Silva, Emmanuel Jose, Pipmen decks, etc) became much more prevalent.

I can't think of many true transformation decks even in the last 100 years and P52 is down for the moment so I can't use that to double check my memory. The most recent true transformation ones I can think of (besides restoration or select cards from some decks) is the 1988 circus deck and EclecDeck.
http://www.wopc.co.uk/transformation/ci ... sformation
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/32 ... ying-cards

I would love to see you do a semi-transformation deck, especially since Emmanuel Jose seems to have given up on that pursuit so there's a void for you to fill!

Jock1971 · Unread post by **Jock1971** » Wed Feb 28, 2018 6:27 pm

Peter Woods has done a few good decks like 2000 Pips, Goblins, Hidden Mickeys, The Teddy deck etc.

Since 2008 Elaine Lewis has only done transformation decks

A favorite Transformation deck of mine has to be Nursery Rhymes by Karl Gerich for the 10th anniversary of the E.P.C.S that was done in 1994

ecNate · Unread post by **ecNate** » Wed Feb 28, 2018 7:55 pm

Good call on Elaine Lewis, I forgot about those because so hard to find. I wouldn't call the decks from Peter Woods true transformation decks though because often the style and placement of the pips are changed. Now I feel I need to try and find some of Elaine's decks again....

Unread post by **guru** » Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:07 am

ecNate wrote:Good call on Elaine Lewis, I forgot about those because so hard to find. I wouldn't call the decks from Peter Woods true transformation decks though because often the style and placement of the pips are changed. Now I feel I need to try and find some of Elaine's decks again....

Thanks Jock1971 and ecnate. Elaine's reference does help.

What are your thoughts about full bleed deck like Ultimate. Full bleed affects playability but if it is gilded, no one can gauge through the stack at least.

ecNate · Unread post by **ecNate** » Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:08 am

Gilded = expensive. It may work for you, it may not, it's a gamble. I'm out personally if that's the case. If it's gilded then yeah it won't matter, but even more so then people likely won't use it to play with so doesn't matter either way. As a result it would be good to do a main version that's not gilded and then better to also make that one not full bleed, but maybe it can be forgiven by some as Ultimate Deck is popular.

I would love to see more semi-transformation decks so looking forward to seeing what you have in mind. I prefer those that have pips re-arranged and not completely altered or worse hard to even spot. That's why I was such a fan of Emmanuel Jose's work. Natalia and PipMen are right up there though too.

I thought Natalia's decks were all semi-transformation, but just remembered her first big one was the Russian Dolls and that may count. Altlhough technically it's mostly just artwork added around the pips rather than actually transforming them and making them part of the art work.

Unread post by **guru** » Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:42 pm

Thanks ecNate. I've got Russian Dolls, and I also feel it is artwork added around the pips. I've developed this liking for pure transformation decks but who knows if the sem-transformation will be the way to go with. Point taken on gilding as well.

Cheers,
Sunish

Jock1971 · Unread post by **Jock1971** » Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:02 am

ecNate wrote: I wouldn't call the decks from Peter Woods true transformation decks though because often the style and placement of the pips are changed.

Thanks EcNate.

it`s been a while since i dug out my peter woods decks but after having another look they are indeed mostly semi-transformations..although "Pack of Pearls" is a full transformation deck.

ecNate wrote:I thought Natalia's decks were all semi-transformation, but just remembered her first big one was the Russian Dolls and that may count

I like Natalia`s work, i think the Russian dolls deck was more akin to the Russian decks from the 1980`s when there was a outbreak of decks featuring vignettes on the pip cards

A bit off topic but have either of you seen Transformation Domino Cards

Called "Laughable Domino Cards" published by S & J Fuller (who published the"Metastasis" Transformation deck of 1811)

Domino`s.jpg

dominos 2.jpg

Unread post by **guru** » Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:51 am

Jock1971 wrote:
A bit off topic but have either of you seen Transformation Domino Cards
Called "Laughable Domino Cards" published by S & J Fuller (who published the"Metastasis" Transformation deck of 1811)
Domino`s.jpg

dominos 2.jpg

Very nice. I've not seen it before. Thanks for sharing.

Unread post by **guru** » Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:08 am

ecNate wrote:Gilded = expensive. It may work for you, it may not, it's a gamble. I'm out personally if that's the case. If it's gilded then yeah it won't matter, but even more so then people likely won't use it to play with so doesn't matter either way. As a result it would be good to do a main version that's not gilded and then better to also make that one not full bleed, but maybe it can be forgiven by some as Ultimate Deck is popular.

Sorry, but I really can’t agree to that. My last 3 decks were all gilded and Kickstarter backers got those at a great discount as compared to post Kickstarter price (which should always be the case for Kickstarter projects, backers should always get a real deal because of the inherent risk in crowdfunding). Most of the backers use these for everyday use and it is mainly because a fair enough price was charged and not prohibitive one as happens with a no. of decks on Kickstarter. The day this bubble will break, I am sure most of the playing card collectors are going to get disappointed.

The issue with playability occurred to me while going through sinjin7's recent post. Full bleed might lead to that issue, but gilded edges can mitigate that to a certain extent.