The design's inspired by Kathakali, the classical Indian dance drama of Kerala.
Here are some pics both from Behance and the site:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/619f2/619f21c3ef822a794ebcecb17e48ae638ca2fc70" alt="Image"
rousselle wrote:You are a fussy, picky guy.
Lotrek wrote:Given the number of morons produced in the world every day, a pessimist is actually a well informed realist.
Räpylätassu wrote:"Tyhmyydestä sakotetaan." You get fined for being stupid.
What's the matter, Kat(hakali) got your tongue?TwoPieceFeed wrote:I don't have any criticisms based on the images shared.
I did some research, and they are poker-sized.vasta41 wrote:What's the matter, Kat(hakali) got your tongue?TwoPieceFeed wrote:I don't have any criticisms based on the images shared.Let me help you out: The render of the cards in that person's hand make these look bridge-sized- do we know for sure these are poker-sized? It doesn't seem to say anywhere. It also doesn't say who printed these, short of the "Made in Kerala" statement but as far as I know, no good printers exist there. Lastly, I like the backs but it should be two-way.
rousselle wrote:You are a fussy, picky guy.
Lotrek wrote:Given the number of morons produced in the world every day, a pessimist is actually a well informed realist.
Räpylätassu wrote:"Tyhmyydestä sakotetaan." You get fined for being stupid.
But there's ways to do it. For example, take the 4 little circles outlying the face- the upper and lower circles could be swapped with the image of the face and made a little larger. Then the symbol inside the circle could be the center image.Merlebird wrote:I do think that if you're going to put a face on the back - and I think it works and is appropriate here - you almost have to do a one-way back. I've never seen a mirrored face on a two-way back that looked good.
yea, what can I say; I'm an oppuntunistTwoPieceFeed wrote:I have to say that I like these a LOT.
I don't have any criticisms based on the images shared.
Edit: At first I didn't pay attention to the text of the post, because of the OP's tendency to pun me to death, but since they're available to purchase right now I will have to buy a couple.
Also - ₹1,200.00 is USD $17.80.
I agree; mirrored faces look off and the one-way back doesn't bother me as much as wishing the back design of the cards had been the same awesome back design of the tuck case - I don't even know why the artist decided to make a different design at all when the back of that tuck is perfection as is! They should've just thrown that on the card backs! God I wish they had! lolMerlebird wrote:I do think that if you're going to put a face on the back - and I think it works and is appropriate here - you almost have to do a one-way back. I've never seen a mirrored face on a two-way back that looked good.
Oh my god, you're right. I didn't even notice that the back design was different from what was on the tuck. Why the hell would they do that...?PipChick wrote:I agree; mirrored faces look off and the one-way back doesn't bother me as much as wishing the back design of the cards had been the same awesome back design of the tuck case - I don't even know why the artist decided to make a different design at all when the back of that tuck is perfection as is! They should've just thrown that on the card backs! God I wish they had! lolMerlebird wrote:I do think that if you're going to put a face on the back - and I think it works and is appropriate here - you almost have to do a one-way back. I've never seen a mirrored face on a two-way back that looked good.
OMG, RIGHT!?!?! lolMerlebird wrote:Oh my god, you're right. I didn't even notice that the back design was different from what was on the tuck. Why the hell would they do that...?PipChick wrote:I agree; mirrored faces look off and the one-way back doesn't bother me as much as wishing the back design of the cards had been the same awesome back design of the tuck case - I don't even know why the artist decided to make a different design at all when the back of that tuck is perfection as is! They should've just thrown that on the card backs! God I wish they had! lolMerlebird wrote:I do think that if you're going to put a face on the back - and I think it works and is appropriate here - you almost have to do a one-way back. I've never seen a mirrored face on a two-way back that looked good.
rousselle wrote:You are a fussy, picky guy.
Lotrek wrote:Given the number of morons produced in the world every day, a pessimist is actually a well informed realist.
Räpylätassu wrote:"Tyhmyydestä sakotetaan." You get fined for being stupid.
I guess whenever I see new work posted on Behance by artists and designers themselves to showcase what they've been working on, I automatically take their word for it and assume it's their own - it's a shame, because now I'll be more wary of such blatantly obvious knock-offsbadpete69 wrote:That's why we are all here to discuss, complain, have fun and expose hehehe. When I first saw the pics it was instant recognition but weirdly enough I almost didn't say anything as I thought all would see it immediately. Then after a few days I could not resist
It's bound to happen that some tucks show similarities to others but this one is such a carbon copy ....
This is why people think UC is bitter. If you don't have your guards up you might get duped. Some may think we're negative but I beg to differ- scam artists like this are negative! Don't kill the messenger I say...PipChick wrote:I guess whenever I see new work posted on Behance by artists and designers themselves to showcase what they've been working on, I automatically take their word for it and assume it's their own - it's a shame, because now I'll be more wary of such blatantly obvious knock-offsbadpete69 wrote:That's why we are all here to discuss, complain, have fun and expose hehehe. When I first saw the pics it was instant recognition but weirdly enough I almost didn't say anything as I thought all would see it immediately. Then after a few days I could not resist
It's bound to happen that some tucks show similarities to others but this one is such a carbon copy ....![]()
This is just gross misrepresentation of the designer through fraud and forgery by his own hand and I just hope that this matter of such egregious copyright infringement can be rectified before he and the company profit off the time, effort and work of designers that truly deserve the recognition. Now that the rightful creators/owners of the designs have been made aware that their art has been stolen, reproduced, and are currently being sold without their permission or a licence to do so, I can only imagine that the next legal course of action would be to demand the product is taken down from the site and have any remaining stock destroyed.
The fraudsters should be held accountable but it just sucks for the legitimate designers to have to spend their own time, effort and often money for legal costs to defend what is rightfully and legally theirs.
ugh, why can't people just not suck...?
agree; I myself, still being pretty new to the hobby, would not have instantly recognized the similarities had it not been pointed out and I'm sure many others might not have either; I had only shared this designer's work because I genuinely liked it and thought it could be of benefit to share with others who might also appreciate it - I honestly like cheering on the lesser known, little guys, but there's absolutely no respect in stealing.vasta41 wrote:This is why people think UC is bitter. If you don't have your guards up you might get duped. Some may think we're negative but I beg to differ- scam artists like this are negative! Don't kill the messenger I say...
UC is a great community with vast collected intelligence and knowledge. I love that we can all 'look out' for designers and collectors alike.vasta41 wrote:This is why people think UC is bitter. If you don't have your guards up you might get duped. Some may think we're negative but I beg to differ- scam artists like this are negative! Don't kill the messenger I say...PipChick wrote:I guess whenever I see new work posted on Behance by artists and designers themselves to showcase what they've been working on, I automatically take their word for it and assume it's their own - it's a shame, because now I'll be more wary of such blatantly obvious knock-offsbadpete69 wrote:That's why we are all here to discuss, complain, have fun and expose hehehe. When I first saw the pics it was instant recognition but weirdly enough I almost didn't say anything as I thought all would see it immediately. Then after a few days I could not resist
It's bound to happen that some tucks show similarities to others but this one is such a carbon copy ....![]()
This is just gross misrepresentation of the designer through fraud and forgery by his own hand and I just hope that this matter of such egregious copyright infringement can be rectified before he and the company profit off the time, effort and work of designers that truly deserve the recognition. Now that the rightful creators/owners of the designs have been made aware that their art has been stolen, reproduced, and are currently being sold without their permission or a licence to do so, I can only imagine that the next legal course of action would be to demand the product is taken down from the site and have any remaining stock destroyed.
The fraudsters should be held accountable but it just sucks for the legitimate designers to have to spend their own time, effort and often money for legal costs to defend what is rightfully and legally theirs.
ugh, why can't people just not suck...?
rousselle wrote:You are a fussy, picky guy.
Lotrek wrote:Given the number of morons produced in the world every day, a pessimist is actually a well informed realist.
Räpylätassu wrote:"Tyhmyydestä sakotetaan." You get fined for being stupid.
Now, after reading the whole thread (more or less), I want to know whether Mike got his deck.th4mo wrote:Wow, this has got to be the worst case of "original" art since the "Persian Empire" deck: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1972&start=20&hilit ... ying+cards
For those unfamiliar... the good stuff starts on page 2.
Users browsing this forum: Evilgamer, KGthePrince and 36 guests