Deck Descriptions

[Aos]

My product question is:

Please order the T11 decks from softest to hardest (if you are TOO kind, include other common decks)

My rant is:

The ideal thing would be for the USPCC to have a numerical grading system for different aspects of the deck, and also give unique names to stock and finishes (not to divulge trade secrets, but make up alternatives so that consumers can distinguish and compare). And have all of that information printed on each deck pack.

But this is not going to happen any time soon, if it all. So until that day can we get actual descriptions of the decks along with the marketing hype? I understand you don't want to promote other decks, but how about just having a comparison chart between all of the theory11 decks (and maybe regular bicycle and tally-hos) for softness, thickness, smoothness, etc. (visual durability and structural durability if you want to get crazy)?

Also, ellusionist is a crap site (in my opinion), but it has one (and probably only) nice feature. For one of their decks (shadow masters I think) on the bottom there is a link to see every single card on both sides AND the box in very high resolution. If you guys are so proud of your design, you should let people look at it up close. That would serve as another method for comparison.


As far as I know, no website that sells cards has these features. All they have is marketing hype. Nonsensical, good sounding, general statements that could be interchanged between decks if only they didn't mention the decks name 10 to 15 times in each paragraph. I think this system of selling builds distrust. People have to go to third party sites and forums to get relevant information about the cards. I think this needs to be improved.


*cough* *cough*

On the production end, theory11 worked hand-in-hand with the US Playing Card Company's research and development team to ensure unsurpassed quality and handling. The result: perfection. The feel of [these cards] rivals or exceeds all past decks produced, employing a number of innovations to achieve incomparable strategic result.

This deck will draw additional awe to any effect, routine, and flourish. Every inch has been painstakingly worked on in both design and production to ensure the deck is truly flawless. We're perfectionists.

 

[Farrell]

I read all that and all I could notice is theory11 claiming their cards are perfect, nothing is perfect, there is no spoon.

 

[Aos]

It would be amusing if computers were sold like this.

We took the fastest best most awesomest parts and stuck em together. It took us 6 months and we were working while rubbing up against fatal1ty and shaguar. We are better than god because he couldnt make anything perfect, but we did, and its this computer!!1!

The funny thing is that if you pick up a Best Buy flyer, their computer adds are turning into this. Their TV ads certainly are already at that level. They are clearly selling to moms; to people who have a very limited knowledge in the subject. So good luck trying to find out the frequency of the RAM, or the spin speed of the hard drive.

Why must retailers dumb down their sales pitch like this? I find it insulting. I think all people who are knowledgeable in the topic do as well. And I think this idea transfers to my earlier rant very well.

 

[trashmanf]

Hi Aos,

you are correct! The card community needs an unbiased review of how the different cards handle in terms of finish, etc.
I happen to be involved with a huge project underway to do exactly that. I'll let you know when it is on-line, filming and editing has already started!

As far as the theory 11 hype - honestly ever since the first edition guardians came out and they clumped like a mofo, I knew we could not trust them. after that it was the brown wynns which "Handle EXPONENTIALLY BETTER!" even though they are terrible, even worse than the blue and red wynns actually.

and it only makes the waters more muddy when you have these 14 year-olds that just got a pack of theory 11 cards, and have been handling cards for a couple months, they have MAYBE 10 different kinds of cards and they say "WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT TRASHMANF!?!? MY BROWN WYNNS FAN PERFECTLY!!!!" when in actual fact, they've never thrown down a decent fan in their life. so consider the source when you read hype as well.

I'm waiting to hear some real reviews on the "centurions" before actually getting some. The 2nd edition Guardians actually ARE very good finish (although not as good as UV500 finish or Palmettos, Squeezers, etc) so if they used the same finish process, they should be alright...

edit: lol @ your computer analogy

 

[Aos]

Indeed.

I wanted to hear more information about ghosts and masters so I youtubed 'ghost review' and 'master review', and EVERY SINGLE VIDEO was a kid with a breaking, high-pitched voice saying that the deck is perfect, but is just like the other expensive decks he has. Meanwhile the deck is so giant in his arm that it looks like its going to give an tear off. Perhaps he thinks they are all the same because his experience with cards is virtually zero.

Clearly every serious card magician has a very good understanding of the different decks of cards that he has tried. Why not share that experience with people who never owned the given deck. Why must we get rubbish from little kids instead?

I'm looking forward to your project, it sounds just right.

 

[orchestrion]

My product question is:

Please order the T11 decks from softest to hardest (if you are TOO kind, include other common decks)

My rant is:

The ideal thing would be for the USPCC to have a numerical grading system for different aspects of the deck, and also give unique names to stock and finishes (not to divulge trade secrets, but make up alternatives so that consumers can distinguish and compare). And have all of that information printed on each deck pack.

The main market for the USPCC is not magicians and most "casual buyers" might not care too much about what the stock and finish of the cards are. A system like this would be cool, but it will probably have to come from card handlers who set up a standard of measuring these things.

As far as I know, no website that sells cards has these features. All they have is marketing hype. Nonsensical, good sounding, general statements that could be interchanged between decks if only they didn't mention the decks name 10 to 15 times in each paragraph. I think this system of selling builds distrust. People have to go to third party sites and forums to get relevant information about the cards. I think this needs to be improved.



Indeed.

I wanted to hear more information about ghosts and masters so I youtubed 'ghost review' and 'master review', and EVERY SINGLE VIDEO was a kid with a breaking, high-pitched voice saying that the deck is perfect, but is just like the other expensive decks he has. Meanwhile the deck is so giant in his arm that it looks like its going to give an tear off. Perhaps he thinks they are all the same because his experience with cards is virtually zero.

Clearly every serious card magician has a very good understanding of the different decks of cards that he has tried. Why not share that experience with people who never owned the given deck. Why must we get rubbish from little kids instead?

If you're going to act like this you might as well just buy all the decks and do it yourself. You have this big vision for a way of judging cards yet you just talk about how much people who are trying to make it work are stupid and deceitful. I seriously doubt every person on YouTube who has reviewed cards is a little kid with a cracking voice and no idea of what they're talking about.

I hate to be such a jerk but this is just ridiculous.

 

[MikeGoyke]

My product question is:

Please order the T11 decks from softest to hardest (if you are TOO kind, include other common decks)

My rant is:

The ideal thing would be for the USPCC to have a numerical grading system for different aspects of the deck, and also give unique names to stock and finishes (not to divulge trade secrets, but make up alternatives so that consumers can distinguish and compare). And have all of that information printed on each deck pack.

But this is not going to happen any time soon, if it all. So until that day can we get actual descriptions of the decks along with the marketing hype? I understand you don't want to promote other decks, but how about just having a comparison chart between all of the theory11 decks (and maybe regular bicycle and tally-hos) for softness, thickness, smoothness, etc. (visual durability and structural durability if you want to get crazy)?

Also, ellusionist is a crap site (in my opinion), but it has one (and probably only) nice feature. For one of their decks (shadow masters I think) on the bottom there is a link to see every single card on both sides AND the box in very high resolution. If you guys are so proud of your design, you should let people look at it up close. That would serve as another method for comparison.


As far as I know, no website that sells cards has these features. All they have is marketing hype. Nonsensical, good sounding, general statements that could be interchanged between decks if only they didn't mention the decks name 10 to 15 times in each paragraph. I think this system of selling builds distrust. People have to go to third party sites and forums to get relevant information about the cards. I think this needs to be improved.


*cough* *cough*

Well this is just my opinion but do you really think theory 11's creative team is gonna go "these cards feel terrible, they clump right out of the box, This is gonna be the worst deck you'll ever have to handle". Of course they're not. The marketing/creative team is gonna make them sound good.

 

[trashmanf]

If you're going to act like this you might as well just buy all the decks and do it yourself.

You have this big vision for a way of judging cards yet you just talk about how much people who are trying to make it work are stupid and deceitful. .

I disagree with this... the whole point he was making, is that there should be well informed, unbiased review system OUT there, so he wouldn't HAVE to waste his time and money on crap decks!

In order to actually make this happen you need resources - first, you need a lot of decks. second, you need to build up the skills so you actually understand how different cards handle (for example, if you suck at faro weaves, you'd incorrectly rate every deck "terrible at faro")

You can keep on hating and nay-saying orchestrion but the honest truth is that I am working very hard and have spent a lot of time and money to make this review system a reality. It'll be online within the month.

 

[orchestrion]

I wasn't directing that comment at you trash. I was pretty much saying either wait for your system to come out or stop complaining. I don't see how you can get "hating and nay-saying" out of that but whatever. It just makes me mad when people post stuff like this and half of it is ignorant comments and misinformation.

 

[Aos]

The main market for the USPCC is not magicians and most "casual buyers" might not care too much about what the stock and finish of the cards are.

I don't think that has much to do with it. Do you really think that they don't have a system in place for knowing the relative qualities of their decks? You don't think that they go through thousands of hours of testing to see what is the perfect middle ground for most people? I don't know if they do this, but I definitely think that they do. They must. So all I was saying is that they should publish that information.

A system like this would be cool, but it will probably have to come from card handlers who set up a standard of measuring these things.

I don't think so either. I mean, there are definite limits. I think that they poses the information on some technical qualities of their decks. And that is what I would like to have be divulged.

But, if we want (and we probably do) the information on how well the cards fan (for example), then you are correct. This information would have to come from card handlers for sure. But there surely is a subset of things that they know but not sharing.

You have this big vision for a way of judging cards yet you just talk about how much people who are trying to make it work are stupid and deceitful.

I was careful to choose my tone when making that post. I didn't call them deceitful, and I definitely didn't call them stupid. All I said is that the method which is currently widely in use could be improved. I wasn't pointing fingers. The quotes at the end were put there only to illustrate a point, and they were from this website only because I could find them so quickly.

And I don't have a big vision. I was simply giving some ideas. And I would love for any single one of those parameters to be divulged, I wasn't asking for all of them.

I seriously doubt every person on YouTube who has reviewed cards is a little kid with a cracking voice and no idea of what they're talking about.

That post was mostly comedic in nature (if it wasn't so obvious). You are correct to call me out on that, but I can definitely argue that the vast majority of the reviews on youtube are not useful to somebody like me. And the problem is that I (and other people interested in this information) have to spend a lot of time looking around on youtube, or forums. Instead I would like a strong source with no wishy washy pipe dreams.

I've discovered this site 2 days ago and I've been fascinated with it ever since. These guys are doing a hell of a job, and I wish that they keep doing that they are doing. They have created a no-nonsense magic website, where every single thing that they offer is a gem, no pipe dreams. So after seeing the tricks that they are selling, I was expecting them to take the same point of view towards selling custom decks, but they don't. This is not a comment on the quality of their cards; I'm very new to this site and have not yet experienced any of their decks myself. It is simply a comment on their marketing practices towards cards.

Well this is just my opinion but do you really think theory 11's creative team is gonna go "these cards feel terrible, they clump right out of the box, This is gonna be the worst deck you'll ever have to handle". Of course they're not. The marketing/creative team is gonna make them sound good.

That's not what I was saying at all. I love hype. I read about what the T11 guys did with centurions and I was blown away. It was very creative. Again, I can't speak to the quality of their cards.

Also, to approach it from a different angle. It's not about deciding which deck is the best. It's about deciding which deck is the best FOR YOU. There is no magical (pardon the pun?) formula (of different deck parameters) to make a perfect deck. I, and I'm sure a lot of other people, simply want to find the deck that is right for our uses. But as it stands now you pretty much HAVE to buy all the cards yourself and try them out. All I want is for them to throw us a bone, or something.

 

[ThomasA2]

What is it that separates the clever people from the not so clever? It is their ability of jugdement. If there is a kid on youtube, saying inmeasurable stuff like, these cards are nice, and they handle well. These words are very inmeasurable, and in most cases they have just read the reviews in the description and are saying pretty much the same thing.
As a magician you may have different preferences for cards. When I judge if this review is giving the information I want, I put a lot of emphasis on the words used to describe. If things like the cards have a good snap is said, I know from experience, that they will not be easily bent, and are going to be good for things like palming and flourishing (because any flourishers dream cards have been said to have a good snap to them). But when i hear someone say, "these babies have lasted two months", I know right away, that they can not be trusted one bit, because this is way too subjective (unless you live in a vacuum without any dust and humidity, and are sterilized before the cards are touched).

My point is, use your judgment. Do they have some other agenda than wanting to share decent information. And actually that goes for everything on the internet. If you learn something, use it in your judgment repertoire.

That is truly, what separates the clever people from the imbeciles.

Tjernobyl

 

[Aos]

How many reviews are out there which compare 5 or more different decks to each other? See, that's the problem. What you are saying is that we should use our judgment to weed out invalid sources. What we are saying is that there are no good sources, valid or invalid. There is nothing to use judgment on. Sometimes the reviews talk about the deck by itself using vague terms like "very" or the infamous "relatively" (without context). "This deck is very soft". That means nothing. Sometimes reviews will compare deck A to deck B. That is still no good. What about the other decks? Do I have to look up videos comparing C to A, and then D to A? That's a lot of work (which could end with no results).

Idea:

There should be a voting system. Nothing official. Just as an experiment. Maybe have the user enter which decks they have experienced, and then have the user arrange them in order based on relative softness, smoothness, etc. NO SCORES, have it all be relative. My gears are turning, I'm actually a programmer by trade. I might whip something up.

Or maybe there needs to be a theory11 type of website only for buying cards? I was hoping that it would be theory11.com

PS: I guess I'm clever, because I have not yet bought a deck with which I was disappointed. In fact, I didn't list "wasting money on bad decks" as one of my counterpoints . My point was that it takes a lot of time to find good information.

 

[Wreq]

What is it that separates the clever people from the not so clever? It is their ability of jugdement. If there is a kid on youtube, saying inmeasurable stuff like, these cards are nice, and they handle well. These words are very inmeasurable, and in most cases they have just read the reviews in the description and are saying pretty much the same thing.
As a magician you may have different preferences for cards. When I judge if this review is giving the information I want, I put a lot of emphasis on the words used to describe. If things like the cards have a good snap is said, I know from experience, that they will not be easily bent, and are going to be good for things like palming and flourishing (because any flourishers dream cards have been said to have a good snap to them). But when i hear someone say, "these babies have lasted two months", I know right away, that they can not be trusted one bit, because this is way too subjective (unless you live in a vacuum without any dust and humidity, and are sterilized before the cards are touched).

My point is, use your judgment. Do they have some other agenda than wanting to share decent information. And actually that goes for everything on the internet. If you learn something, use it in your judgment repertoire.

That is truly, what separates the clever people from the imbeciles.

Tjernobyl

You got a great point. i go through a deck in 1 day or 2 if i haven't used them a lot. the truth is that none of my decks are good after 2 days. the thing about the cards lasting a month is absurd. I've never met a deck that lasted more than 3 days.
As for what the other guy said, i believe you should go ahead and experiment every deck you can. It's nice to have a lot of "pretty" decks, but you should really just search for one that feels comfortable in your hands.

 

[Anonymous002]

If you are still looking for reviews you can check out THIS and THIS.

Sure the site hasn't been updated in a while...but the info is still there.



And on the subject of the rating system, I think that we do need something universal with expert ratings from all ends of the spectrum.


Peace.
-Brad

 

[Aos]

You got a great point. i go through a deck in 1 day or 2 if i haven't used them a lot. the truth is that none of my decks are good after 2 days. the thing about the cards lasting a month is absurd. I've never met a deck that lasted more than 3 days.

3 days? You're vicious. But I agree, whenever a review says the cards last long I shudder.

i believe you should go ahead and experiment every deck you can.

Centurions are $5, and its like $7 to ship them to Canada. And they are no exception, all custom cards like these are 5ish. Not to mention I can name 10 such custom decks off of the top of my head. That's a lot of money, and for what? If I have deck A now, and I want something with more snap, why should I go and buy every deck out there in search of what I want. Why not simply be given the information that deck B is a little snappier than A, C is a lot more, etc. Clearly there is an aspect of even figuring out what type of deck you prefer. But having a source of information on how different decks compare would undoubtedly reduce the amount of decks you have to buy.

Not to mention the site would be able to sell quite a lot of decks. Think about it, if you are experimenting with decks, what is your incentive to buy 6 packs of any given one? None. Because you are wary that you may not like them. However, if you know that you will like them then there is nothing stopping you from getting them in high volumes.

 

[Aos]

If you are still looking for reviews you can check out THIS and THIS.

Sure the site hasn't been updated in a while...but the info is still there.



And on the subject of the rating system, I think that we do need something universal with expert ratings from all ends of the spectrum.


Peace.
-Brad

See what I mean? The second link is dead. And the first link doesn't do at all what I am asking for. It doesn't rate the decks based on softness, thickness, etc. And it doesn't compare them to eachother either, you can only compare scores. I don't want a site that compares the overall "goodness" of decks. It's a bonus (if it's from a trustworthy source), but all I want is to be able to compare and contrast different properties myself, I just need those relative numbers.

 

[ThomasA2]

How many reviews are out there which compare 5 or more different decks to each other? See, that's the problem. What you are saying is that we should use our judgment to weed out invalid sources. What we are saying is that there are no good sources, valid or invalid. There is nothing to use judgment on. Sometimes the reviews talk about the deck by itself using vague terms like "very" or the infamous "relatively" (without context). "This deck is very soft". That means nothing. Sometimes reviews will compare deck A to deck B. That is still no good. What about the other decks? Do I have to look up videos comparing C to A, and then D to A? That's a lot of work (which could end with no results).

Idea:

There should be a voting system. Nothing official. Just as an experiment. Maybe have the user enter which decks they have experienced, and then have the user arrange them in order based on relative softness, smoothness, etc. NO SCORES, have it all be relative. My gears are turning, I'm actually a programmer by trade. I might whip something up.

Or maybe there needs to be a theory11 type of website only for buying cards? I was hoping that it would be theory11.com

PS: I guess I'm clever, because I have not yet bought a deck with which I was disappointed. In fact, I didn't list "wasting money on bad decks" as one of my counterpoints . My point was that it takes a lot of time to find good information.

I can only cultivate your idea about creating this voting system on a web site, which is totally objective. Maybe a little like the rating system in IMDB, where the movies have different genres - Your site could use this concept to describe things like, scales of smootness, stifnees and durability.
It also could have an overall 10 scale voting system, where it show points down to 0.1 precision.

The more votes, the better. The biggest obstacle will be to get votes enough to make the rating a representation of the wide spectrum of people

 

[Aos]

The simplest and most straightforward way would be to have people arrange them in a relative order. So for example, if we are going by thickness:
Have the user pick which decks they have experienced
Show a list of draggable decks, and ask the user to drag them around until they think that they are ordered from thinnest (going from the top) to thickest (at the bottom).
Have the user click submit.
Very simple, very straightforward. One of the benefits to using this system over 10 scale is readily apparent from the above example. How can you rate a cards thickness, or it's spring? It's too vague, a 10 scale would fail badly. That's why it all has to be relative.

Hmm, that totally happened by accident. I was thinking of a web 2.0 ajaxy way of doing it and making it look good, but I think a relative system would be far superior to an out of ten rating. Also, don't forget that the out of then rating could be generated by the algorithm. All it does is it takes the thinnest deck and gives it 10/10 and the thickest it gives 0/10, and every other deck would be put somewhere in that list based on its' relative thickness and the amount of votes that stated it's relation to other decks. So that in the end you could definitely have a list of decks with out of 10 ratings, but the HUGE benefit would be that if a new deck comes out, and its the thinnest thing ever, then IT would be the new 10/10, and the old 10/10 deck would be immediately auto rerated by the algorithm. Tell me, what review site will do that for you when a new deck comes out?

 

[Aos]

I've added a poll as an example of how this deck property survey could be set up. Please vote, as it would answer my original question.

Looking at it now, it would be incredibly clever and clean looking to have just the pictures of the sides of the cards decks, and enable the user to drag them above and below each other, as well as on the same level. Because after all, some cards have identical properties. Doing this with any other method, for example in the form of a poll, would require more than 3 million options to choose from if you'd want to compare 10 decks!

 

[ThomasA2]

Thats a pretty good idea. I see the problems with a rating system. How can the human touch be able to value a thinness from 0 to 10, rather than just giving it 0 for thick and 10 for thin. It is much easier to compare.

Also, It is very important that you stick to the "same as" feature too, because of course some cards will be exactly the same in a category. If that category is what you look for and the price between the two is different it would be a huge help.

Clever...

I really am looking forward to hear about this project, it sounds very realistic and innovative.

Tjernobyl