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

I've been sharing the progress of this deck over in my company thread. I've gotten far enough with the design and direction that I think it warranted a dedicated thread so it would get mixed up with my other Kings Wild Shorts Deck that I was Posting there as well.



INVOCATION - the summoning of a deity or the supernatural.

Card Specs:

Current Planned Production Specs:

Cold Foiled / Gold Guilded Edition - Run of 100-200 (This Edition may be omitted depending on the final production cost of gilding and also to keep the Kickstart project a little more simple)
Cold Foiled Edition - Run of 800-1000

Both of the above editions will have the same Back design and court cards. Both the faces and backs will be cold foil with gold cold foil.
These editions will also have a unique AoS compared to the Non-Cold Foiled Edition.

Back Design
[*]Non-Cold Foiled Edition - Run of 2500+

This edition will have the same designs, both back and faces as the Cold-Foiled edition just MINUS the cold foil. The cold foil will be replaced with metallic inks.

Both Editions are planned to be printed with Cartamundi using their crushed B9 finish.

Two Piece Intaglio printed tuck case.

Tuck Case Specs:

The Cold Foiled & Cold Foiled Editions will have an Intaglio printed, two-piece tuck case that will be engraved and printed at Artistry Ink in Chicago. (the Same crew that printed Alex's current delicious tucks)
You can see an early prototype that I created my self (Is NOT intaglio printed) but gives you an idea of what the final product will be. Note, the name "INVOCATION" will be placed within the center title area that is currently blank."

Instagram Link to the short video of the tuck case prototype

https://www.instagram.com/p/BnADBnhlIyG ... _copy_link

The NON-Cold foiled edition will have a traditionally offset printed tuck case. I'm not sure yet if the gold linework will be hot foil stamped just yet as I'm pretty sure that the designs are too intricate and small for hot stamp foiling. The design will be basically the same thing, however, the will be no separate belly band as it will be printed onto the main tuck body.

Prices for these decks is still up in the air as this is my first time working with Cardumundi and we are still working out production costs.

You can most likely expect prices similar to most of my recent project IE Maduro and Tigers for the different edition price breakdown.

Standard Edition with offset printed Tuck Case Qty - $12-$14 (+2500 deck minimum)
Cold Foiled Edition with Intaglio Printed Tuck Case - $28-$38 (800-1000 deck run)
Cold Foiled Edition with Intaglio Printed Tuck Case & Gold Gilded Edges - $42-$50 (100-200 deck run) This edition could possibly ommited.


I hope to offer this deck on Kickstarter in early November or possibly February of 2019

This may change depending on my current progress alongside the October, November, and December Kings Wild Shorts Decks.

Examples of the Spade Courts

I'm excited! The line work is amazing.

Thanks for keeping us updated!

Coid foil!

I am definitely in. I like the idea of the Intaglio tuck case and gilded deck, but understand if it doesn't come about. Just wondering though if those limited decks help fund the campaign? It has been the subject of conjecture that the limited decks are a necessary part of many campaigns to boost the overall funding needed.

Jackson, count me in if and when this becomes a kickstarter reality. Great having you back on the forum and seeing and hearing all that you have to share.

One request from me for your future kickstarter projects.

In the past, it seemed like you would provide us with the Tiers or a preview of the kickstarter campaign before it went live. Any thoughts to doing that again? I find that on some of your past projects I spent so much time reading what each tier was that I missed out on the tier that I actually would have chosen. I read slow I guess.

Anyway, just an idea. I look forward to watching the progress on your projects.

I don't see that anybody's brought it up on this forum yet, though I'm not on IG or Twitter so maybe somebody mentioned it there: you're only showing us three courts so far, but just based on these three courts the style of the figures doesn't feel consistent. The KoS's face is caricatured and angular, whereas the QoS's is all round, soft curves with a more "realistic" feel. The JoS seems to take after the Queen, with a softer chin and more proportional eyes, but the King looks like a different species altogether. I don't know if you're inclined to revisit any of these or if they're more or less the final art, but I'd like to see them brought a little more in harmony with each other. Just my 2¢.

Merlebird wrote:I don't see that anybody's brought it up on this forum yet, though I'm not on IG or Twitter so maybe somebody mentioned it there: you're only showing us three courts so far, but just based on these three courts the style of the figures doesn't feel consistent. The KoS's face is caricatured and angular, whereas the QoS's is all round, soft curves with a more "realistic" feel. The JoS seems to take after the Queen, with a softer chin and more proportional eyes, but the King looks like a different species altogether. I don't know if you're inclined to revisit any of these or if they're more or less the final art, but I'd like to see them brought a little more in harmony with each other. Just my 2¢.

Great point. I did the KoS first so I really pushed the style hard to see where it might land. I did the queen second and It is sometimes hard to make a figure look female when only using sharp angles so I probably pulled back in order to keep her beautiful. The Jack came third and just followed the Queen. I like both styles, and personally, I really like the Queen's face. It's always nice to land on a really beautiful queen (which I think this one is) I most likely will go back and revamp the KoS a bit to reflect the slightly more realistic Queen and Jack direction cuz I really don't want to lose the queen. I'm early enough in the process that making a change like that is easy.

Merlebird wrote:I don't see that anybody's brought it up on this forum yet, though I'm not on IG or Twitter so maybe somebody mentioned it there: you're only showing us three courts so far, but just based on these three courts the style of the figures doesn't feel consistent. The KoS's face is caricatured and angular, whereas the QoS's is all round, soft curves with a more "realistic" feel. The JoS seems to take after the Queen, with a softer chin and more proportional eyes, but the King looks like a different species altogether. I don't know if you're inclined to revisit any of these or if they're more or less the final art, but I'd like to see them brought a little more in harmony with each other. Just my 2¢.

I tend to agree and prefer the Q and J over the look of the K's face. Also wondering if the standard deck will be that gold color, as it seems all the detail in the court design gets lost without a contrasting color.

If you can pull off that level of linework detail in foil, it will look amazing!

Bradius wrote:Coid foil!

I am definitely in. I like the idea of the Intaglio tuck case and gilded deck, but understand if it doesn't come about. Just wondering though if those limited decks help fund the campaign? It has been the subject of conjecture that the limited decks are a necessary part of many campaigns to boost the overall funding needed.

I honestly don't think the answer to this question is yes or no really. I think you have to take it project to project, really more specifically artist to artist. I say this with all grace and appreciation that I feel like I've been around long enough and have had the good fortune to develop an audience of solid supporters who could make getting a "non ltd" project funded. I think this goes for a few other of the veteran designers who deck after deck produce exceptional and unique products.

Now on the flip side, I think it is hard for a new designer, even if the design and execution are done well to get a project funded period. I and the other veteran designers have had the privilege and time to develop audiences of followers that span both the card collector world, as with here on the UC, AND followers that repeatedly buy our products that are not a part of the card collecting world. For example, you have tons of card collectors who are also Lotrek fans. You also have non card collectors who are Lotrek's art fans. It's having a wide base of followers in both worlds that makes funding a project, in any form. Much easier.

As the playing card world evolves you will see each of the veteran artists start venturing off onto their own paths as they grow and develop that wider base of followers of their art rather than just playing card collectors. (naturally, a by-product of non card collectors following a specific artist leads to some of those people becoming card collector's as well)

As the designers dive deeper into their craft we will all start pushing the technical and manufacturing side of it as well as the basic economics of it to stay fresh.

To come back to your specific question about this project the ltds... The two main reasons I am doing this project are: 1. Create a fully intaglio printed tuck case. 2, Work with Cardimundi and try out their cold foiling process. If I had to trim anything about this project I would end up axing the top and bottoms off IE. get rid of the standard edition and get rid of the Gilded edition. I would do this because the LTD edition is the reason, artistically and technically that I am doing the project.

This is a whole nother' can of worms but printing in Asia or the US is now comparable in price, if not flop sided now. Grant it this is from my point of view only. The price of printing the cards themselves has honestly become cheaper to do so with USPCC (even with 1000 deck runs) than printing 1000 decks in China. When you take the tuck case printing out of the hands of the people who are printing your cards, you save tons of money. It is that factor that, for me, that it is cheaper now to print in the US than in China. It is not 100% of the time but most of the time. This change in the manufacturing market has naturally led me to try new things like the Kings Wild Shorts.

JacksonRobinson wrote:This is a whole nother' can of worms but printing in Asia or the US is now comparable in price, if not flop sided now. Grant it this is from my point of view only. The price of printing the cards themselves has honestly become cheaper to do so with USPCC (even with 1000 deck runs) than printing 1000 decks in China. When you take the tuck case printing out of the hands of the people who are printing your cards, you save tons of money. It is that factor that, for me, that it is cheaper now to print in the US than in China. It is not 100% of the time but most of the time. This change in the manufacturing market has naturally led me to try new things like the Kings Wild Shorts.

To phrase this in as politically neutral a way as possible: how long has this trend been developing? Is the shift due largely to the new tariffs, or has this been a longer time coming than that?

This isn't necessarily a question for you specifically - I'd be interested to hear from other deck creators who get quotes from multiple different manufacturers on a semi-regular basis - but since you mentioned it I thought I'd ask.

I personally think it has nothing to do with current trade wars. The shift has been happening for over the past two years I would say. It is due to the fact that the Chinese factories that we're being used just started upping their prices. Tack on top that a middle man or company that an artist has to go through to deal with those factories equals prices that makes it hard to beat me going to USPCC directly with no middle man and do the same with my tuck manufacturer s.

First let me welcome you back to the forums. Your input in the playing card world was (and now is) very valuable, and I'm glad that you decided to come back and share it again with us. Hope that this time you don't run away from our "negativity" and just stick around.

Now back on the topic, great to see you also experimenting with Cartamundi's Cold Foil. The back design should look fantastic in cold foil, as for the faces, not a big fan here, but if it will be all cold foiled I may very well ending up getting this deck. (Montenzi's NEO:WAVE Ultra is currently on my top 3 best 2018's decks).

JacksonRobinson wrote:

Bradius wrote:Coid foil!

I am definitely in. I like the idea of the Intaglio tuck case and gilded deck, but understand if it doesn't come about. Just wondering though if those limited decks help fund the campaign? It has been the subject of conjecture that the limited decks are a necessary part of many campaigns to boost the overall funding needed.

I honestly don't think the answer to this question is yes or no really. I think you have to take it project to project, really more specifically artist to artist. I say this with all grace and appreciation that I feel like I've been around long enough and have had the good fortune to develop an audience of solid supporters who could make getting a "non ltd" project funded. I think this goes for a few other of the veteran designers who deck after deck produce exceptional and unique products.

Now on the flip side, I think it is hard for a new designer, even if the design and execution are done well to get a project funded period. I and the other veteran designers have had the privilege and time to develop audiences of followers that span both the card collector world, as with here on the UC, AND followers that repeatedly buy our products that are not a part of the card collecting world. For example, you have tons of card collectors who are also Lotrek fans. You also have non card collectors who are Lotrek's art fans. It's having a wide base of followers in both worlds that makes funding a project, in any form. Much easier.

As the playing card world evolves you will see each of the veteran artists start venturing off onto their own paths as they grow and develop that wider base of followers of their art rather than just playing card collectors. (naturally, a by-product of non card collectors following a specific artist leads to some of those people becoming card collector's as well)

As the designers dive deeper into their craft we will all start pushing the technical and manufacturing side of it as well as the basic economics of it to stay fresh.

To come back to your specific question about this project the ltds... The two main reasons I am doing this project are: 1. Create a fully intaglio printed tuck case. 2, Work with Cardimundi and try out their cold foiling process. If I had to trim anything about this project I would end up axing the top and bottoms off IE. get rid of the standard edition and get rid of the Gilded edition. I would do this because the LTD edition is the reason, artistically and technically that I am doing the project.

This is a whole nother' can of worms but printing in Asia or the US is now comparable in price, if not flop sided now. Grant it this is from my point of view only. The price of printing the cards themselves has honestly become cheaper to do so with USPCC (even with 1000 deck runs) than printing 1000 decks in China. When you take the tuck case printing out of the hands of the people who are printing your cards, you save tons of money. It is that factor that, for me, that it is cheaper now to print in the US than in China. It is not 100% of the time but most of the time. This change in the manufacturing market has naturally led me to try new things like the Kings Wild Shorts.

Jackson - I would echo others' comments here: your view of the playing card market is most welcome and useful.

I really like the deck and, while I can clearly see your logic in dropping the cheapest deck, please do consider producing the gilded version. As you said, you do not really need one to fund your campaign (I am sure it will be times oversubscribed as it always does) but a gilded version would be a nice add-on for the collectors here.

I'm still not a fan of the name, but that won't prevent me from loving the designs of this deck.

Jackson:

You mentioned that costs can be less if you take the printing of the tuck box out of the hands of the company printing your cards. Could you expand on that? As one of those soon to be first time creators you mentioned with a long shot at actually getting funded I’m interested in your thoughts. When I print with USPCC do you suggest finding another printer for the tuck box or just use USPCC for continuity for a first timer? Do you have a printer recommendation in the US for the tuck box? Thank you! And I can’t wait for Tigers to ship next year!

Jackson has talked on this subject. I believe there are a number of great domestic printers that can make awesome tuck boxes. Vanda has been using Clove St. Press for The Planets series and another of others have used them for tuck cases. I have gathered that USPCC can be very expensive if you start getting specialized in your tuck requirements. They can do it, but it is expensive. I forget who Alex Chen is using for his Apothecary tucks, but they are doing an Intaglio impressed tuck for him.

Bradius wrote:I have gathered that USPCC can be very expensive if you start getting specialized in your tuck requirements. They can do it, but it is expensive.

The impression I'd gotten is that USPCC doesn't do them at all, and the reason they're so expensive when you get them through USPCC is that they have an outside vendor do bells-and-whistles tucks. I don't know for a fact what printing capabilities they do and don't have in-house, though.

Merlebird wrote:

Bradius wrote:I have gathered that USPCC can be very expensive if you start getting specialized in your tuck requirements. They can do it, but it is expensive.

The impression I'd gotten is that USPCC doesn't do them at all, and the reason they're so expensive when you get them through USPCC is that they have an outside vendor do bells-and-whistles tucks. I don't know for a fact what printing capabilities they do and don't have in-house, though.

I believe that is accurate. The meterial I have from USPCC doesn’t explicitly say that but suggests that they send the tucks out to a second printer. I’ll check Clove St. Press. Thanks for the suggestion Bradius.

Magistrate1500 wrote:Jackson:

You mentioned that costs can be less if you take the printing of the tuck box out of the hands of the company printing your cards. Could you expand on that? As one of those soon to be first time creators you mentioned with a long shot at actually getting funded I’m interested in your thoughts. When I print with USPCC do you suggest finding another printer for the tuck box or just use USPCC for continuity for a first timer? Do you have a printer recommendation in the US for the tuck box? Thank you! And I can’t wait for Tigers to ship next year!

This is my advice to a 1st time playing card artist that wants to do their first Kickstarter. Granted this is my view only but I think it is a solid path to having the best chance of getting a deck funded on your first Kickstarter.

1. In my opinion, THE ABSOLUTE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR when attempting a Kickstarter is having an exceptional and unique idea/concept that you execute at a very high level.

If you have an ok idea and ok execution you will most likely fail.

Deciding what a strong or weak idea/execution is very subjective.

2. Keep it simple and stupid. For a first time artist I would encourage them to have not be distracted by the bells and whistles IE Super premium tuck case, embossing, foiling, ect. You absolutley could make a big splash with a huge technical advance or something that has never been done before but that would only be a novelty and if you want to be a staying artist you will have to have something build upon besides a novelty. Novelties can be great and profitable but they don't create a wide and devoted audience.

If you came out with a deck that had color changing foil that changes in the moonlight, and that's it. You would be ever be known as "The Guy that made that cool deck that had the foil that changed in the moonlight."

You want to be remembered for your craft/art, not your ability to scour the interwebs long enough that you find a manufacturer that does what you want. I promise that the thing that you think "has never been" done before 9 times out 10 has already been done.

I would go back to rule #1 then print with USPCC and print a tuck case on their in-house tuck case. It is called the T-20 tuck case. It is the same tuck case that all of my display decks come in. If you add any bells or whistles of any kind past simple spot color printing or 4over printing they will have to outsource on their T-52 tuck case and the price will automatically jump up $2-3.

If you printed a 4/4 color deck of playing cards on USPCC's base stock and use their in-house tuck case. There is no reason your deck should cost over $8-9K. This is for a print run of 2500. Now there other costs that you must add into this for your Kickstarter funding goal like shipping and handling but I think a $8-9K funding goal for a 1st time artist that has killed rule #1 is a very doable thing.

I could go on for days, on this subject but think these two things are the most imortant things to consider when talking to a new deck artist.

THERE ARE TONS OF OTHER TECHNICAL ISSUES THAT WOULD NEED TO BE CONSIDERED LIKE FULFILLMENT AND TAXES AND SUCH.

JacksonRobinson wrote:

Magistrate1500 wrote:Jackson:

You mentioned that costs can be less if you take the printing of the tuck box out of the hands of the company printing your cards. Could you expand on that? As one of those soon to be first time creators you mentioned with a long shot at actually getting funded I’m interested in your thoughts. When I print with USPCC do you suggest finding another printer for the tuck box or just use USPCC for continuity for a first timer? Do you have a printer recommendation in the US for the tuck box? Thank you! And I can’t wait for Tigers to ship next year!

This is my advice to a 1st time playing card artist that wants to do their first Kickstarter. Granted this is my view only but I think it is a solid path to having the best chance of getting a deck funded on your first Kickstarter.

1. In my opinion, THE ABSOLUTE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR when attempting a Kickstarter is having an exceptional and unique idea/concept that you execute at a very high level.

If you have an ok idea and ok execution you will most likely fail.

Deciding what a strong or weak idea/execution is very subjective.

2. Keep it simple and stupid. For a first time artist I would encourage them to have not be distracted by the bells and whistles IE Super premium tuck case, embossing, foiling, ect. You absolutley could make a big splash with a huge technical advance or something that has never been done before but that would only be a novelty and if you want to be a staying artist you will have to have something build upon besides a novelty. Novelties can be great and profitable but they don't create a wide and devoted audience.

If you came out with a deck that had color changing foil that changes in the moonlight, and that's it. You would be ever be known as "The Guy that made that cool deck that had the foil that changed in the moonlight."

You want to be remembered for your craft/art, not your ability to scour the interwebs long enough that you find a manufacturer that does what you want. I promise that the thing that you think "has never been" done before 9 times out 10 has already been done.

I would go back to rule #1 then print with USPCC and print a tuck case on their in-house tuck case. It is called the T-20 tuck case. It is the same tuck case that all of my display decks come in. If you add any bells or whistles of any kind past simple spot color printing or 4over printing they will have to outsource on their T-52 tuck case and the price will automatically jump up $2-3.

If you printed a 4/4 color deck of playing cards on USPCC's base stock and use their in-house tuck case. There is no reason your deck should cost over $8-9K. This is for a print run of 2500. Now there other costs that you must add into this for your Kickstarter funding goal like shipping and handling but I think a $8-9K funding goal for a 1st time artist that has killed rule #1 is a very doable thing.

I could go on for days, on this subject but think these two things are the most imortant things to consider when talking to a new deck artist.

THERE ARE TONS OF OTHER TECHNICAL ISSUES THAT WOULD NEED TO BE CONSIDERED LIKE FULFILLMENT AND TAXES AND SUCH.

Thank you. That is very helpful. I may scrap the gold foil, embossed Limited Edition for now. As much as I want to play with the big boys I think I need to stay in the shallow end of the pool for a while. It sounds like that will give me a better chance, as long as I can nail number 1.

JacksonRobinson wrote: If you add any bells or whistles of any kind past simple spot color printing or 4over printing they will have to outsource on their T-52 tuck case and the price will automatically jump up $2-3.

I received a quote from USPCC today to assemble tuckbox done through an external vendor where the price of the deck minus the tuck increased by ~$3. Seems like USPCC want to dissuade me not to get the tuck assembled through them. I'm looking to add foil & embossing to the Standard edition deck's tuckbox but the tuckbox assembling cost is becoming a deterrent as the total cost to get the deck printed & assembled is shooting a bit too much.

guru wrote:

JacksonRobinson wrote: If you add any bells or whistles of any kind past simple spot color printing or 4over printing they will have to outsource on their T-52 tuck case and the price will automatically jump up $2-3.

I received a quote from USPCC today to assemble tuckbox done through an external vendor where the price of the deck minus the tuck increased by ~$3. Seems like USPCC want to dissuade me not to get the tuck assembled through them. I'm looking to add foil & embossing to the Standard edition deck's tuckbox but the tuckbox assembling cost is becoming a deterrent as the total cost to get the deck printed & assembled is shooting a bit too much.

It jumped so much because they have to hand assemble them. If they receive a tuck case that is not from of their "tested" vendors they have a company policy that they have to hand assemble them. This is because they don't run untested tuck cases through their multimillion-dollar machines. The way different paper stock (especially with embossing and foiling) can react differently once on a machine line. Having you tuck case "tested" involves you sending them 3-4K flat tuck cases that are exactly like the ones you want assembled that they test. These are tucks that will me trashed after the testing is done as most of them will get torn up.

For me printing an extra 3-4K tucks is just unrealistically possibly.

There are other manufacturers that will assemble playing cards for you. You should also learn how to assemble them yourself. It's a great learning experience and also save a ton of money. I've assembled a few of my projects.

JacksonRobinson wrote:

guru wrote:

JacksonRobinson wrote: If you add any bells or whistles of any kind past simple spot color printing or 4over printing they will have to outsource on their T-52 tuck case and the price will automatically jump up $2-3.

I received a quote from USPCC today to assemble tuckbox done through an external vendor where the price of the deck minus the tuck increased by ~$3. Seems like USPCC want to dissuade me not to get the tuck assembled through them. I'm looking to add foil & embossing to the Standard edition deck's tuckbox but the tuckbox assembling cost is becoming a deterrent as the total cost to get the deck printed & assembled is shooting a bit too much.

It jumped so much because they have to hand assemble them. If they receive a tuck case that is not from of their "tested" vendors they have a company policy that they have to hand assemble them. This is because they don't run untested tuck cases through their multimillion-dollar machines. The way different paper stock (especially with embossing and foiling) can react differently once on a machine line. Having you tuck case "tested" involves you sending them 3-4K flat tuck cases that are exactly like the ones you want assembled that they test. These are tucks that will me trashed after the testing is done as most of them will get torn up.

For me printing an extra 3-4K tucks is just unrealistically possibly.

There are other manufacturers that will assemble playing cards for you. You should also learn how to assemble them yourself. It's a great learning experience and also save a ton of money. I've assembled a few of my projects.

Hey Jackson!

That's just nuts that they would require 3-4K Tucks to test it through their machines. Such a waste of paper, ink and / foil.

Is Clove Street Press one of USPCC's approved third party printers? I see a lot of designers using them lately, and just assumed they are.

Thanks, Randy

Randy: Clove St. Press is an approved USPCC vendor. I spoke with Clove St. directly about that issue last week.

Magistrate1500 wrote:Randy: Clove St. Press is an approved USPCC vendor. I spoke with Clove St. directly about that issue last week.

I would make sure you speak with USPCC about that before making production cost estimates. Clove Street may be an approved vendor but that doesn't mean that their tucks have gone through the testing process with USPCC. Their status may have changed recently but at least a few weeks ago they were still in the approval process. Clove St. is awesome, I'm only saying that because I've learned from experience to get your information like that from USPCC directly before making any fiscal plans.

Thanks JR. I will do that.

Great KoD Jackson. I'm amazed at your artistic variety, especially with your subscription series decks, and now this.

JacksonRobinson wrote:

This looks amazing, but now I'm thinking you'll have to revisit the JoS to bring its style in line with this one's. It could be just me, but I think his hair in particular (and possibly also his absence of a neck) is going to look too cartoonishly stylized in comparison to this more realistic-looking king.

Merlebird wrote:

JacksonRobinson wrote:

This looks amazing, but now I'm thinking you'll have to revisit the JoS to bring its style in line with this one's. It could be just me, but I think his hair in particular (and possibly also his absence of a neck) is going to look too cartoonishly stylized in comparison to this more realistic-looking king.

I'm def going to revisit the early court card faces. I have really found the stride with the faces now and really like how they are all turing out. I went back and redid all the faces at once so now I just need to go back put bodies on them.