Fes wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:14 pm
I'm going to venture that. . . That's paint! Finely ground pigment piped through an airbrush. It's alcohol based so it dries quite fast. No special steps other than clamping it down required.
That certainly would explain the... [
gestures encompassingly at photos] now, wouldn't it. Of course it's going to look like a "particulate" if it, you know,
is one. Anything shiny that's fine enough to put through an airbrush is basically glitter, which no binder or adhesive known to science has ever successfully kept from transferring onto everything it touches. And minimum quantities? Pfft, there's no job too small for a can of spray paint. It all fits.
So, Eric, if I might amend my earlier response:
Eric Lee wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:58 am
How is the gilding?
It's paint!
This does raise a delicate taxonomic question. Broadly speaking, the modern collectors' market seems to have accepted the generalization of the term "gilding" to include, not just the use of gold simulants like cupric alloy foil, but also the similar application of foil of other colors. (Note the regular description of decks as "silver gilded," a turn of phrase which would probably kill every art history student you know if you repeated it three times into a darkened bathroom mirror.) But what about cards edged, not with metal foil of any kind, but simply metallic pigment? Is it acceptable for sellers to claim that they're "gilded," but
not that they have "gilding?" Are "gilded" and "gilding" both reserved for cards edged with metal foil, and ethical marketers confined to describing their painted decks merely as having "gilt edges?" Or, so long as it glitters, is all ad copy golden?
I mentioned in the previous post that I had done some digging through the UC archives looking for an explanation of what might cause variations in the appearance and handling of "gilded" decks. (As usual, I was simultaneously over- and under-thinking it, but let's set my broken brain aside as a topic for another occasion.) Here's a choice pearl I came across during my research; excisions in [...] are mine, all else [sic]:
JacksonRobinson wrote: ↑Thu Mar 20, 2014 9:23 am
As card collectors we always we are conditioned to paying the cheapest price for in most cases really crappy decks that have no thought into them, and have no attention to detail [...] We always gripe about USPC not being able to do this or not be able to do that, but in reality it is our faults as collectors that they have done away with things like, perfect registration, metallic foiling on cards, gilded edges. They have done away with those because we don't demand the highest quality of product from card companies and designers. We demand (with our wallets) the 15th recoloring of a bland deck that barely even printed on nice stock, and has no attention to detail. The only detail that is being paid attention too is making the deck cost under $2.00 to print so their margins will be high. [...] We as collectors have guided USPC and other card companies where they are today when more beautiful cards were being produced on far inferior equipment a hundred plus years ago [...] The only thing I ask is to be mindful that our sometimes laser focused attention to "Buy Low Sell High" as a collector over times erodes the very art that we all love, because it drives the direction of the companies in which make the products that we buy [...] In my eyes there are only about 3-4 companies/designers who are really pushing the envelope and propelling the craft forward, the rest are settling for "just ok" and putting out decks that show it. Demand the best, demand the highest standards and if its not to those standards (my decks included) don't spending your money [...] please don't by a crappy deck, because buying a crappy deck just because you are a card collector just means that "they" will keep making crappy cards.
Jackson wrote this in early 2014. I started collecting something like a year and a half later, and the hobby he's describing here is
almost unrecognizable to me. I don't want to overstate the influence of our shady little corner of Al Gore's internet, but I don't think it's overblown or narcissistic to say that, as a group,
as I write this, the collectors and creators who use this forum are playing a significant role in setting the bar for what the collectors' market will accept. So I'm interested to see what others here think of this deck treatment (to describe it as neutrally as possible), and of what specific language is or isn't appropriate to use in marketing decks thus treated.
Words. I said 'em, you read 'em. Thanks.