Rational Relative Deck Comparison

[jhaneyzz]

OK,

Enough, maybe this has been proposed before, Maybe I'm a genius.

No slight against Magic Orthodoxy, but the thickness of 10 cards stated in millimeters is of absolutely no use to me.

I propose a new, simple, intuitive, approachable, comparable deck thickness measurement.

Meet the "bike"

You place two decks on the table.

One, a standard set fo Bicycle Rider Backs.
The other, the deck in question.

You slide the decks together on a table top and press enough on the edges so that any cards that exceed the height of the other deck slide over and onto the shorter deck. (try it and the method is obvious, I'm not a brain surgeon)

They are either:

Equal in height: 0 bikes
Thicker than the Bicycles: +x bikes (1 for each of the cards in excess of the height of the Bicycle deck)
Thinner than th Bicycles: -x bikes (1 for each of the cards in the Bicycle deck in excess of the height of the deck in question)

Think of it:

"I consider decks thinner than -2 bikes to be too thin for easy faro shuffling"

"The deck is fat as a pregnant sow... +4 damn bikes!"

Who's with me?

[Harvonsgard]

The fact that this is is in the new and customs section makes me strongly oppose this regardless of the content.

[Decknowledgy]

Move this to the General Section and I'm with you lol

[MagikFingerz]

I do believe I've seen this being used in deck reviews before, but it's probably a long time ago. Would be nice to standardize this, maybe add it as a data point in Portfolio52?

[Timmargh]

What about weight, too? I picked up my Vanda Aces deck earlier today and it's way heavier than the average deck.

[macstrat]

all right! a chance to be pedantic!

I love the idea! I do have a question about process tho:

Given the different stock types and finishes, there would need to be a specific deck from a specific point in time that is used as a reference (think of the international prototype kilogram), this way if bikes ever change stock or finishes, you still have the same base dimensions to measure from. What specific deck would be used as reference?

[jhaneyzz]

Point taken...

There might have been alcohol involved in the oversight...

The fact that this is is in the new and customs section makes me strongly oppose this regardless of the content.

[Harvonsgard]

Yah, the idea screams intoxication... .
The idea itself is fun. Good for a round table talk and spitballing non-sense and I'm saying that unironically. It's great to have fun.
In all seriousness though; the objective measurement of a caliper is accurate. Why change it with a subjective measurement method? As macstrat pointed out you would have a) to use a specific deck. Who grants everyone has that at hand? Even standard bikes vary from year to year; not in insane margins but yah, not really objective either. And b) you would have to keep that deck in like archive climate conditions so that itself doesn't change over the years.

Your proposal is basically the banana for scale meme brought to playing cards, which again, is a fun thought but not useful aside from entertaining.

[RichK]

Don't forget gilding as added weight.

[Bradius]

As far as thick decks go, Jackson's Intaglio printed deck I think takes the prize in my collection. Although calling it a deck of cards is a stretch. However, if I throw in my tarot decks, the amazing Visconti Modrone reprint is just a slight bit thicker (although admittedly it has something like 89 cards in the deck. The Goetia Tarot is almost the same thickness as The Intagio deck, but again it has a lot more cards in the deck.

[macstrat]

i think my thickest deck is a PVC braille deck. Doesnt stay flat because of the bumps and comes in about 2". when we use it to play we keep it in the metal box it came in so they dont fall everywhere. Thinnest is a deck I picked up in china that I believe is regular printer paper without the transparency, that comes in at about 3/8" and shuffles for sh*t.

[jhaneyzz]

Ok, but which people who care about the thickness of decks for Cardistry or slight of hand uses... owns a caliper...

My point is that the mm thickness on 10 cards is pointless. At least measure the thickness of 52 cards. Decks vary on number, but ALL decks which bear comparison have 52.

I own about a thousand decks and I gauge their relative thickness by how much they vary from a deck of bikes. The ones with the “Get the free app” badge. Stock variation and navel gazing aside it is the most useful, accessible, comparison you that have.

Go ahead and argue for an official ANSI/ISO specification.

But I think a good, every-man’s (person’s) vernacular it’s all kinda annoying.

Like me!!!

[jhaneyzz]

Don’t forget, we have to consider the relative humidity and length of time the two decks have been exposed to said humidity. Oh. And the heat index. Age of cards and whether the cards have been swimming in cold water recently... (guys know what I mean...)

[macstrat]

Ok, but which people who care about the thickness of decks for Cardistry or slight of hand uses... owns a caliper...

*hides his drafting tools*

[Harvonsgard]

That answer was pure gold. Seriously though, no need to be ashamed for having a caliper.

[macstrat]

That answer was pure gold. Seriously though, no need to be ashamed for having a caliper.

oh im not ashamed at all. I love my calipers. one of the few tools i can say I use at least once ever day.

[EndersGame]

No slight against Magic Orthodoxy, but the thickness of 10 cards stated in millimeters is of absolutely no use to me.

I propose a new, simple, intuitive, approachable, comparable deck thickness measurement. You slide the decks together on a table top and press enough on the edges so that any cards that exceed the height of the other deck slide over and onto the shorter deck. (try it and the method is obvious, I'm not a brain surgeon)

I agree that the method of using just 10 cards is not reliable. It gives the impression it is test that is more scientific and accurate than what it actually is. In reality it is too small a sample.

Comparing a full deck of 54 cards (if you include Jokers) seems more helpful, and is exactly what I've been doing for a while. But you have to make sure you use the same deck as your point of comparison each time, and it should be a deck using USPCC's retail (Bicycle/Classic) stock, not their premium (Bee/Casino) stock, or their crushed stock.

Cartamundi's B9 Superlux stock is a few cards thicker than a standard Bicycle deck, and Cartamundi's B9 Slimline stock is a few cards thinner than a standard Bicycle deck. And you can indeed tell exactly how many cards thicker or thinner an entire deck is.

Just don't try Ellusionist's trick, when they publicized misleading product pictures like this for the Slimline deck when it first came out. Their promotional picture is shown below, and I did an expose in the following article:

False Advertising: An exercise in exposing a misleading product picture.

[macstrat]

Just don't try Ellusionist's trick, when they publicized misleading product pictures like this for the Slimline deck when it first came out. Their promotional picture is shown below, and I did an expose in the following article:

False Advertising: An exercise in exposing a misleading product picture.

That whole thing was a trainwreck.