sms69x wrote: βSat Aug 14, 2021 8:40 am
don't know why you would say that, but different color backs are completely different print runs
Because I worked as a print finishing operater and later as a printjob manager (which included calculations and processing inquiries and planing the production) in the print industry. So, while I didn't work in card production, I might know a thing or two about the costs and technical processes behind the scenes, which of course makes me pretty biased and sceptic.
Indeed KWP has slightly higher costs now, because they have to pay for two printing plate changes (modern machines do these fully automatic in less than 5min btw.) and said plates, not much else happens and the overall increase of costs is I suspect marginal - I'm happy to be proven wrong by seeing the actual numbers.
It is of course not the exactly same as a tuck swap but it still is a small, clever effort for a good profit (aka people who are now even more convinced they get something for the extra money they pay).
All cool with me, I'm not in charge of anyone's wallet but mine and if it makes people happy, please by all means , buy all three versions and even multiples thereof.
Just my perspective on things.
Harvonsgard wrote: βSat Aug 14, 2021 9:52 am
Indeed KWP has slightly higher costs now, because they have to pay for two printing plate changes (modern machines do these fully automatic in less than 5min btw.) and said plates, not much else happens and the overall increase of costs is I suspect marginal
I figured the increased price was due to the drastic increase in shipping costs for EPCC-printed decks. Timelines seem to line up anyway.
Also, the cost for USPCC to print two different back colors is probably marginal, that's true, but I'd be willing to bet that they do charge extra for this option.
I've spent way more than I care to admit on playing cards, but I'll still buy just about anything that Lorenzo, Jackson, or Gio make.
I was solely comparing the (old) tuck swap option against the (planned) different back colour option.
Of course printers charge extra for changing printing plates, which is exactly what I wrote .
I don't equate a different coloured back as being the same as a tuck swap. When you combine a tuck swap with a different coloured back, you unow have a unique deck inside and out. A tuck swap is allowing him to do much larger print runs of the same deck (and yes there is a difference regarding quantites and limited versions) whilst only paying the cost for a different tuck.
Not even sure why this is being debated, it's a very different thing.
A lot of buyers actually want this stuff. I've seen multiple people asking Jackson on his livestreams if he will release more APs. No idea how he will release them though. Perhaps his new auction site.
Personally, I think the tuck is just as much a part of the deck as the cards, so a limited edition tuck swap works well for me (not to mention I don't actually open my decks, so I never see the cards anyway ). Part of why I collect is my appreciation of their value (though if I don't like the art, then it doesn't matter how much they're worth, I don't want 'em).
I've spent way more than I care to admit on playing cards, but I'll still buy just about anything that Lorenzo, Jackson, or Gio make.
tuck swap is also a different print run on the tucks. usually it also has a different design as well, not just a color change. i guess you could label them as cash grabs but that may be a bit cynical as i think both are to offer more options as well as selling more. personally, i would rather see complete different decks in a series like Gio does, although his backs are usually the same but different color. he has done tuck swaps to use up over prints on the decks though. personally, i have pretty much stopped buying most sets if the courts are the same art and just the backs and tucks are a different color.
The above conversation (and, thanks for keeping it civil, everyone) highlights an interesting problem for our favorite playing card creators: you can't make everybody happy. Mr. Playing Card feels cheap, EPCC China is too stiff and sometimes bows if there's heavy foil, USPCC has dubious print and cut registration, etc. There's also the headaches on the back end: Cartamundi can be slow to respond and even slower to produce decks, and who knows what other issues Jackson and others have dealt with behind the scenes with Shuffled Ink, MPC, WJPC, etc. There's the logistics of the supply chain, the shipping costs and various import tax considerations depending upon what's shipped from whence to where. No matter which manufacturer the project creator chooses, somebody, somewhere is going to have legitimate complaints, and I'm sure that gets to be a bit much after a while.
Then, there's the design considerations. With multi-tiered products like Jackson's subscription decks (and a host of KS projects, etc.), some folks bemoan the idea that it's just the same decks in different boxes, while others bemoan the idea that if the decks are different, then you *have* to get the different boxes in order to actually "complete the set." Still others might complain that recoloring the backs isn't enough, the courts/faces should also be changed. Or, that there are *too many* varieties.
I think most project creators are successful at tamping down a lot of the complaining by being as clear and consistent as circumstances permit. Lotrek will delay a project in order to make sure the quality meets his exacting standards, and because he's consistent about that, he is given more of a pass than most other project creators would normally get when his projects are delayed. With Gio, if he announces three decks in a given run, you know there's going to be four. You know that he's going to do more than just recolor the backs; he's also distinguishing the faces of each deck.
I could go on at length about the slack we cut so many playing card designers because, whatever we dislike about their choices, we can predict upfront what those choices are likely to be.
Jackson has put himself into an interesting situation: his shorts subscription service was created as a playground for experimentation. He stated so very clearly, upfront. He wanted to push himself and push the boundaries of what he was able to do. He wanted to see how having a regular deadline would expand his creativity. The Shorts Subscriptions are his laboratory. But, this also means that things will be (as they have been) less consistent than the audience sometimes prefers. The audience is prone to being more vocal about their complaints when they can't quite rely on consistency.
The thing about experiments is that, well, some experiments produce better results than others. And because so many people have decided to participate in the Shorts subscription experiment, that means there's more people to complain when something they care about doesn't quite pan out.
HOWEVER, that's not bad news for Jackson. That's good news for Jackson. This is an experiment, and not only is he testing his creativity, his logistics, his manufacturers, and his team, he also gets to test the audience. Are the critics more vocal when the card backs change per tier level, or when they are the same? Are people okay with cheaper, faster producers like Mr Playing Card? Which is more important to the audience: keeping the schedule, or favoring a particular manufacturer who can't maintain a schedule? Which trade-offs are worth making, and when?
I expect the lessons learned from his Shorts Subscriptions and Table Players to inform his decisions going forward with his larger projects, like the upcoming Lord of the Rings and Mistborn (?) series. I expect that he'll be better able to fulfill his creative desires and, at the same time, fulfill our desires as customers. At the end of the day, all of this practice and all of these experiments should produce a far superior result than Jackson would have been able to do without them.
While I continue to urge everyone to keep the conversation civil, I nonetheless encourage everyone to voice their opinions, and vote with their dollars where appropriate. No designer will ever be able to satisfy the entire audience perfectly, but hearing which issues are most important to which customers will undoubtedly help those producers who listen to produce better decks for wider audiences.
rousselle wrote: βMon Aug 16, 2021 3:32 pm
With multi-tiered products like Jackson's subscription decks (and a host of KS projects, etc.), some folks bemoan the idea that it's just the same decks in different boxes, while others bemoan the idea that if the decks are different, then you *have* to get the different boxes in order to actually "complete the set." Still others might complain that recoloring the backs isn't enough, the courts/faces should also be changed. Or, that there are *too many* varieties.
Yea you nailed it with this, he literally is taking the feedback from people who think they are too similar and is making an effort to make them different and people are still unhappy
Which decks are printed in Shuffled Ink and Mr. Playing Cards?
This is my first time hearing them, and actual first time I heard a few designers used them
laitostarr777 wrote: βTue Aug 17, 2021 11:57 pm
Which decks are printed in Shuffled Ink and Mr. Playing Cards?
Shuffled Ink:
Haunted 8s
Old Ironsides
Deck the Halls
Mr Playing Card:
Made in the USA
Lord Dundreary
KWP Big Red One
Are these decks the complete list of the decks printed by these two companies? Hmm Interesting.... if only there is an indication of the printer on the bottom
Is the Haunted 8s and Deck the Halls are the old ones, the one without all the crazy foils?
Also, I've just checked my Old Ironsides, and...... I can't really tell the difference XD It's just like USPCC, or did I miss something?
rousselle wrote: βMon Aug 16, 2021 3:32 pm
Jackson has put himself into an interesting situation: his shorts subscription service was created as a playground for experimentation. He stated so very clearly, upfront. He wanted to push himself and push the boundaries of what he was able to do.
agreed with everything you write above only issue I have with the sub decks this year is the experimentation just stopped. half decks this year are just boring reprints or every fed 52 deck with the most plain boring tuckboxes. previous years have had such cool ideas like a sweater tuck, new gilding colors that weren't just gold, wacky designs like VHS, cool tucks like Halloween. this year besides 2-3 decks has been a disappointment I think. i of course don't know if using crappy printers like Mr playing card is considered purposeful experimentation, seems like it's more born of necessity because of the pandemic because other printers were slammed
rockets455 wrote: βWed Aug 18, 2021 6:17 pm
the experimentation just stopped. half decks this year are just boring reprints or every fed 52 deck with the most plain boring tuckboxes.
Doing that was what allowed him to put more time into the other decks he made this year. And personally, I think the plain tucks for the reprinted Fed 52 decks actually look pretty nice. They have a simple, clean look to them that works really well as a set. Sure, it doesn't take much time to make, but not everything has to be intricate and detailed and imaginative. But I get it, not every design is for every person.
rockets455 wrote: βWed Aug 18, 2021 6:17 pm
i of course don't know if using crappy printers like Mr playing card is considered purposeful experimentation
I mean, obviously it isn't. He initially used Mr. Playing Card mostly for their quick turnaround for the Made in America and Meat decks, since he needed to make them quickly and didn't have time to go to a different printer. He's been going with EPCC more this year because of the foiling he uses and USPCC was especially backed up for a while. Now that shipping prices and times from China are shooting up, he's had to resort to print more decks domestically. The only reason he managed to go with USPCC for Alice is because they told him they could get them printed in time, otherwise he would have gone to Mr. Playing Card as well.
I've spent way more than I care to admit on playing cards, but I'll still buy just about anything that Lorenzo, Jackson, or Gio make.
I have yet to get my Lord Dundreary decks! I will see if I can evaluate the quality of Mr. Playing Cards
Also, if Old Ironsides is printed by Shuffled Ink, (don't roast me) yet why it feels like it's USPCC? I keep on believing that the War Series is printed by USPCC entirely
EvilDuncan wrote: βWed Aug 18, 2021 12:56 pm
The Meat Deck is by Mr. Playing Card. The deck list is inaccurate.
Where have you found this information?
Anyway, the card quality is quite good. Dribbles are snappy, springs are flawless, fans are flawless. The only thing I wasn't able to do was a faro. It would probably faro with a little force but I didn't want to damage the cards.
masagin303 wrote: βThu Aug 19, 2021 4:11 am
Where have you found this information?
I don't know that it's written anywhere, but they say "made in the USA" on the box so they weren't EPCC. You can probably scroll back on his Instagram and find where he says it. I mostly know because I watch his YouTube lives all the time. They are 100% made by Mr. Playing Card.
I've spent way more than I care to admit on playing cards, but I'll still buy just about anything that Lorenzo, Jackson, or Gio make.
Harvonsgard wrote: βThu Aug 19, 2021 1:57 am
The original Kingswildshorts Limited and Display deck from 2018 are Shuffled Ink. The reprints (including the gilded ones) are USPCC.
This is accurate. The 2018 decks were limited to 144 and most major manufacturers require a larger print run, so he went with Shuffled Ink. Maybe they have some good stock, idk.
I've spent way more than I care to admit on playing cards, but I'll still buy just about anything that Lorenzo, Jackson, or Gio make.
Mr Playing Card's Instagram account included photos of "The Cut" as a kind of show-and-tell. If they didn't produce that deck, it seems odd that they would be showing it off. That was my first indication that they produced it. I heard someone else say later they heard Jackson talk about it on Dawns Early Light.
I'll note that the one I opened up doesn't fan perfectly for me, although I've certainly had decks that are clumpier out of the box. YMMV. They still rank above NPCC in terms of handling, but I'd never confuse these with USPCC or EPCC or Cartamundi.
Thanks for sharing the link. I evidently missed his youtube channel move for the live programs. The Alice in Wonderland is by far his best work this year, and one of my top decks he has done. I imagine this one will be in his permanently available decks. Still, this is why I back his Subscription decks. Because sometimes, he puts out an amazingly inspired deck. This is definitely one of them. For those not subscribed, pick this one up.
The Crazy Squirrel Deck Hunter - Hunt decks to extinction
I finally received my Alice in Wonderland limited and standard decks. I didn't see any registration issues on the standard deck I opened and was pleased with the printing by USPCC for the deck. A lot of detail was missed, but a lot can be seen. I really think this is one of Jackson's best deck designs.
If you all haven't seen the Lord of Rings designs, Jackson is redesigning it to be more in the style of Alice in Wonderland. He has been working on the borders right now. Each suit will have a different border. The past couple of days he was working on the Spade border. Each suit will represent a different season and spade is representing winter. It showcases the one ring and includes a scroll with the script of the ring on it.
The Crazy Squirrel Deck Hunter - Hunt decks to extinction
.
). Part of why I collect is my appreciation of their value (though if I don't like the art, then it doesn't matter how much they're worth, I don't want 'em).
