theory11/JB admits that Q1 exists...

[MMMM133713371337]

Read this :

http://www.theory11.com/playingcards/sentinels.php


Sentinels by theory11.They told us it couldn't be done. We proved ourselves right.

40% thicker box. Imported tuck case material. Metallic. Embossed. 909 Finish. Q1 Quality.


And compare it to this:

http://decknique.net/forums/thread:9186-2

T11 and JB finally admits that Q1 exists after endless months of denial and claiming that all decks ''manufactured by the USPCC are of the EXACT same quality''.Finally the above subjects mentioned in the title are no longer in denial.What are your thoughts guys?

Credits to United Cardists , Decknique and frostchew.

 

[Nickerus]

"ALL Tally-Ho decks currently manufactured by the USPCC are of the EXACT same quality. -------- The individual at USPCC I spoke to had no idea what Q1, Q2 even meant --------- A quick survey of our team lead to a total of ZERO that have heard of Q1 / Q2 - not Dan and Dave, not Andrei, not CK, not Jason, no one."

He was speaking of Tally-Ho's in that thread. And I can only assume that things can change within a company and those people at that time could just be unaware of the term Q1.

I think you should take a nap.

 

[MMMM133713371337]

The term Q1 has been known for a very long time , much longer than you think.And if you understood , you would have understood that JB apparently does now know what Q1 means.

I think you should do some research.

 

[Nickerus]

I never said that I don't think that the term Q1 never existed nor did I say when I thought it came around. I personally think that you just like to make assumptions and disrespect everyone you can. Had you gone two pages farther you would have also read this.

"Regarding the Q1 / Q2 / Q3 question (the topic at hand), I spoke with USPCC again this morning and I am working on finding some more information about it. I do believe my previous post (that Tally's are not currently produced in multiple levels of quality) is accurate, but I have asked around with regard to how they have been printed in the past. My post before was speaking only of the present.

Will advise as soon as I have more info. For now, hope everyone had a good weekend.

// jb. "


Please refrain from the negativity.

 

[SleightedMind]

I think you should do some research.

Speaking of which, JB has made clear in the T11 forum a few days ago he was mistaken and that the USPCC employee he spoke with didn't know about Q1, hence the confusion.

 

[Jacob]

The term Q1 has been known for a very long time , much longer than you think.And if you understood , you would have understood that JB apparently does now know what Q1 means.

I think you should do some research.

I dont understand why you care? Or why this topic was started. Other than to sh*t talk Theory11. Whats the matter with you? Whats your beef with Theory 11?

 

[MMMM133713371337]

They have always been produced the same way in the past up to now.There are Q1 , Q2 and Q3 decks .Not like all decks are produced in the exact same quality like what JB said.No further response has been made by JB and neither did he anknowledged Q1 exists untill NOW.

Please refrain from refusing to interpret what I said in many possible ways.

EDIT : @Jacob ,

I was merely wanting to break news that T11 and JB finally anknowledged that Q1 exists after the he made the obviously poor responses made at decknique some time ago saying Q1 does not exist and that all quality of decks are the same.

And if you have read my posts on this thread carefully , you would know that they are facts.I have the right to state facts here.

 

[onimushalord89]

Ok, if Q1 does exist according to the "official (easily photoshopped) document," can we have some more information about it? What does it mean? How does this affect the cards? How is this a plus compared to other decks?

I don't mean this in a mean way, but instead of say that these cards feel phenomenal, why not put up some facts that support the claim. What is the stock? How is the finish, and how does it compare to other finishes? Are the edges rough? Is the art centered? All of these are important factors that come into play for an experienced card buyer. Even a simple 5 star rating system for each category would help. Example: Stock- 1 star thin stock, 5 star thick stock. Finish- 1 star soft, 5 star stiff.

Take buying a computer as an example. You wouldn't just take someone's word that the computer you are looking at is super fast. You would want facts. How much ram does it have? What is it's processing speed? How many cores does it have? These are all important facts that tell the buyer more about the product than opinions ever will.

What I am trying to say is start putting fact behind your playing cards so that we(consumers) can make informed purchasing decisions based on fact rather than opinion.

Thanks

 

[SleightedMind]

From what I understood, all cards produced by the USPCC are aimed towards the Q1 standard, however, the production quality isn't perfect, thus resulting in more or less "bad" decks : Q2, or worse, Q3.
I guess Bicycle 808 Rider Back Seconds are Q2 or Q3, whereas the "normal" 808 are Q1.

Regarding to your post, a ranking system would be far from accurate, as each compound got his avantages and disavantages, hence couldn't be rated objectively as one may prefer air-cushion finish and another air-flow finish. Moreover, the finish is claimed to be new, so, unless you try it, you wouldn't possibly know...


And btw, could you really tell the difference between a 4 stars finish and a 5 stars finish ???

 

[MMMM133713371337]

Q1 decks like Tally Ho decks from MGM are very centered , cleanly cut (smooth edges) , has a generally better finish than others, mostly lasts longer and the stock feels slightly overall

EDIT : @Sleight :

Bicycle decks are still Q1 , Q2 and Q3.Mostly the Q3 decks and other decks which are worst than Q3 are put into Seconds.

 

[onimushalord89]

Regarding to your post, a ranking system would be far from accurate, as each compound got his avantages and disavantages, hence couldn't be rated objectively as one may prefer air-cushion finish and another air-flow finish. Moreover, the finish is claimed to be new, so, unless you try it, you wouldn't possibly know...

And btw, could you really tell the difference between a 4 stars finish and a 5 stars finish ???

You are still thing of an opinionated ranking system. I am taking about cold hard facts. Preference would only be on the buyers end.

Is the stock thick or thin? 1 star thin, 5 star thick. Personally i like thick cards, so i would be looking for a thick stock deck, I.E. a 4 or 5 star rating. But if someone wanted a thin stock deck, then they would be looking for a 1 or 2 star deck.

It is a pure fact based rating system free from opinion. You are thinking of a good bad rating system.

Another example:
Finish? 1 star slippery/glides, 5 star sticky.

Facts. We need facts.

 

[praetoritevong]

You're asking for a lot there. I'd be surprised if people could agree on many ratings at all. I mean, even something like thickness is sometimes contested - never mind things like how smooth the surface is.

 

[j.bayme]

MMM,

I clarified this in a post two days ago saying that the original individual I spoke to at USPCC was incorrect, and it was as simple as that. Further, since you seemed to have created an account on theory11 only to spread negativity and post disrespectful, unprofessional rants that are baseless in facts, you get to be the first one to be banned on our new site. Congratulations.