Dan & Dave - 4 decks - Steamboats & Bicycle New Fan Backs

[darkinertia]

do we know for a fact that theyre the same exact decks as the vintage designs? id like to see a side by side, they must of done something different other than the box...to be fair, the vintage design box looks like crap lol

[Wildereachday]

I'll compare the Dan and Dave version to the Reprint version once they arrive.

[MagikFingerz]

[quote="hikeeba"$28.50/brick + ship for Cincy Q1.
D&D is $50.49/brick + ship. [/quote]
If they were the same price, I'd probably get some and compare. Though there is still no way KY decks can be better than OH decks.

[alric]

I got the reprinted D&D Steamboat decks today. Do the Bucks actually think that no one is going to compare the thickness of the reprinted cards to the original deck?!? The stock of the D&D reprints is NO WAY similar to the originals - they are considerably thicker! In fact, if you put the reprinted Steamboats into the tuck box of the original Steamboats, its a very tight squeeze.

Not only that, the D&D Steamboat reprints are slightly THICKER than even a deck of Bicycle Rider Backs despite the fact that the Steamboats have a smooth finish! Here is a direct quote from the lying twins:

"As one of our favorite decks we convinced the USPCC to allow us to reprint them to their original specification with a smooth finish on ultra thin paper."

Original specs my ass! I don't know why I keep thinking the next thing the twins tell us might actually be true. These are not ultra thin like the originals. These are not thinner than even standard Bikes. Again, one of the unique features that make the orignal Steamboats so beloved is the super thin, yet reasonably stiff, stock.

Also, the Bucks aged the faces of the cards with an off-white coloration. I don't have a problem with that, but it affects the background white color on the backs as well. If you put the original Steamboats next to the reprints, the backs of the originals are a crisp white and there is a nice, clean contrast between the white background and the red/blue full bleed flower design. The backs of the reprints don't have that crisp whiteness, but have an off-white hue. Not a super big deal, but its yet another deviation from the original specs.

Overall, I'm still glad these were made available, but a significant feature of what made the original Steamboats so unique is lacking. I consider the claim by D&D about the "thinness" of their reprinted stock an outright misrepresentation just to sell decks. I mean, even if you can't get them as thin as the originals, at least make them thinner than a standard Bike.

[MagikFingerz]

That's disappointing to hear, but I can't say I'm surprised

[Wildereachday]

I got the reprinted D&D Steamboat decks today. Do the Bucks actually think that no one is going to compare the thickness of the reprinted cards to the original deck?!? The stock of the D&D reprints is NO WAY similar to the originals - they are considerably thicker! In fact, if you put the reprinted Steamboats into the tuck box of the original Steamboats, its a very tight squeeze.

Not only that, the D&D Steamboat reprints are slightly THICKER than even a deck of Bicycle Rider Backs despite the fact that the Steamboats have a smooth finish! Here is a direct quote from the lying twins:

"As one of our favorite decks we convinced the USPCC to allow us to reprint them to their original specification with a smooth finish on ultra thin paper."

Original specs my ass! I don't know why I keep thinking the next thing the twins tell us might actually be true. These are not ultra thin like the originals. These are not thinner than even standard Bikes. Again, one of the unique features that make the orignal Steamboats so beloved is the super thin, yet reasonably stiff, stock.

Also, the Bucks aged the faces of the cards with an off-white coloration. I don't have a problem with that, but it affects the background white color on the backs as well. If you put the original Steamboats next to the reprints, the backs of the originals are a crisp white and there is a nice, clean contrast between the white background and the red/blue full bleed flower design. The backs of the reprints don't have that crisp whiteness, but have an off-white hue. Not a super big deal, but its yet another deviation from the original specs.

Overall, I'm still glad these were made available, but a significant feature of what made the original Steamboats so unique is lacking. I consider the claim by D&D about the "thinness" of their reprinted stock an outright misrepresentation just to sell decks. I mean, even if you can't get them as thin as the originals, at least make them thinner than a standard Bike.

I'll respond more in a bit, but did you take the ad cards out before your tests? With only 52 + 2 jokers in each deck, the DnD decks is actually slightly thinner than the originals, but not even by a whole card. The deck fit very well inside the old box too. More to come...

[alric]

The D&D reprints had 2 ad cards which I took out before comparing them to the original. Using the Sinjin method of comparing decks, I stacked 52 cards of each deck side by side and the reprints were a full THREE cards thicker than the originals. The reprints were still one card thicker than standard Bikes. I set the two tuck boxes side by side and the reprint box is visibly thicker.

The reprints are thicker. Period. They are not ultra thin. If you stack the two decks side by side, I don't know how in the world you could say the reprints are thinner. Please recheck your decks.

[Wildereachday]

Just rechecked. Same results. Here's the box photo.

You can see they are essentially the same thickness. The reprint box is on the right and slightly thicker. However, I could get the entire reprint deck (52+2jokers) and also 4 cards from the original deck before there was any resistance to putting the deck in the box.

Here's a photo of the decks side by side.

The reprint is on the left. The original has a bit of a bow to it, but if I add equal pressure to both decks, the original is still one card thicker.

Maybe you have superthin steamboats?

[alric]

All original Steamboats are super thin, they're one of the thinnest decks produced by USPC. Try comparing the reprints to a deck of KY Rider Backs and see what the results are. I don't know why your deck of original Steamboats is thicker than the reprints. You say your original Steamboats are bowed a bit, that tells me perhaps maybe they absorbed some moisture, which may account for them being thicker. If your reprints are actually thinner than the originals, then they should be at least three cards thinner than the KY Bikes. Again, the ones I had were one card thicker than the Bikes......

[jmrock]

Wildreachday, I don't think you're comparing a vintage deck with the reprints... It looks as though the box on the left is a fairly modern box with a sticker seal, is it not? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they were referring to an original early 1900 deck...

By the way, I may very well be in the minority here, but I happen to like the reprints of both the Steamboats and the New Fan Backs... Both some of of my favorite decks of all time, and it's nice to have a fresh reprint with original Bicycle Font with a deep red and touch of gold (Fans) and as for the Steamboats, the embossing is nice... However, I would've much preferred the original front of the steamboats...

Original Russell & Morgan Factories USPCC Steamboat Deck

Late 1800s Early 1900s Steamboat Back Salesman Sample

[Wildereachday]

When I say Original Steamboats, I'm talking about an Ohio deck, not a vintage tax stamp deck. I was trying to compare the DnD reprint with what I thought most people had (the ~$10 Ohio Steamboats). When I read DnD's description, I thought they were also referring to the decks still available on eBay.

Comparing my Ohio Steamboats to the DnD reprints, the reprints are thinner. We can argue about control conditions, humidity, ya-da ya-da, but I was just trying to provide helpful information to everyone based on the decks in front of me. Bottom line is if you like Ohio Steamboats, you should give these a try. In my opinion, the reprints did a great job matching the original ohio-made decks that we still have access to, at half the cost or less.

Sorry for the confusion if everyone thought I was talking about Tax stamp decks.

[siote]

I think their are 4 types of steamboats that are listed

the smooth finish ones alric was referring
the kinda reprint that are air cushion ohio made that Wildereachday referring
the rereprint that dnd just did
and the vintage tax stamp that jmrock is referring


Correct me if I'm wrong but I think ALRIC was referring to the steamboats that are smooth finish.

[Strag]

Ah, but the real question is which one is D&D referring to when they claim to have recreated an older one?

[Wildereachday]

The ones I'm talking about are from Ohio with a blue deck seal. They have a smooth finish, not air cushion.

[alric]

I was also referring to the Ohio produced smooth finished Steamboats, not the vintage tax-stamped versions. The original Steamboats, Absolut Vodka decks, and Massas are the thinnest decks I have and they are easily 2-3 cards thinner than Kentucky Rider Backs, so its baffling to me how Wilders D&D reprints are thinner than Rider Backs or even the original Steamboats when my reprints are so much thicker.

I would appreciate it if anyone else who got the D&D reprints would compare their reprints to a deck of Kentucky (not Ohio) Rider Backs and let me know which are thinner. I look at the pictures Wilder posted and then look at my decks and I can't believe the 4 card discrepancy in thickness between his decks and my decks.