The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPCC KS

Unread post by **badpete69** » Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:40 pm

Invited Chris to stop by our forums to discuss his deck

Unread post by **MagikFingerz** » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:04 pm

Other than the glaringly obvious no-no of text on the back design, which also makes it one-way, I'm not sure what to think of this deck.
It's... interesting (and I actually mean that, I never use 'interesting' in place of a bad word to sound nicer when critiquing decks).

walrus · Unread post by **walrus** » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:17 pm

I don't always mind print on backs if done well but in this case it does not look done well. Other than that I like the deck. I do wish KS decks would stop saying limited edition.

Unread post by **dazzleguts** » Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:05 pm

Why do these cards remind me of liquor bottle labels

walrus wrote:I don't always mind print on backs if done well but in this case it does not look done well. Other than that I like the deck. I do wish KS decks would stop saying limited edition.

Yeah, limited edition but they don't mention how many will be printed.

charlie81dbz · Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:50 pm

I think the text on the card backs clashes with the rest of the design, but I like the cards themselves and the tuck looks nice (assuming they hit their stretch goal of $24K of course). But is it just me or are more people are overcharging for their decks? It seems like there are a few decks that have recently gone live from people running their first project for $15 a pop, which is asking a bit too much imo...

charlie

Unread post by **Sharpie** » Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:31 am

MagikFingerz wrote:Other than the glaringly obvious no-no of text on the back design, which also makes it one-way...

That's not the only thing that makes it one-way. Check the pips around the edges.
I would like to see the text replaced by something.

Unread post by **MagikFingerz** » Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:23 pm

Sharpie wrote:
MagikFingerz wrote:Other than the glaringly obvious no-no of text on the back design, which also makes it one-way...
That's not the only thing that makes it one-way. Check the pips around the edges.
I would like to see the text replaced by something.

Oh yeah, didn't even notice. But without the text it would at least be less obvious.

Unread post by **Sharpie** » Fri Jun 14, 2013 7:06 pm

MagikFingerz wrote:
Sharpie wrote:
MagikFingerz wrote:Other than the glaringly obvious no-no of text on the back design, which also makes it one-way...
That's not the only thing that makes it one-way. Check the pips around the edges.
I would like to see the text replaced by something.
Oh yeah, didn't even notice. But without the text it would at least be less obvious.

Indeed.

Widdee · Unread post by **Widdee** » Fri Jun 14, 2013 7:49 pm

Agree with those who don't like the type on back. He could put a 2-way swirl on there instead and sell more to the serious users IMO and I think it'd look nice anyway. Or do what they did the Ultimate deck using a mirror image so it works 2-way.

Unread post by **vasta41** » Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:45 am

I don't like the back either but I don't think an ambigram is the way to go either. I really like how he blacked out the courts (or at least the queen that's pictured). I almost wish the courts were two ways but I guess that wouldn't look right witht the one-way type. I like this deck- like MagicFingerz said, it's interesting. But the bad back design will be enough to keep me from pledging $15.

Widdee · Unread post by **Widdee** » Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:25 am

vasta41 wrote:I don't like the back either but I don't think an ambigram is the way to go either. I really like how he blacked out the courts (or at least the queen that's pictured). I almost wish the courts were two ways but I guess that wouldn't look right witht the one-way type. I like this deck- like MagicFingerz said, it's interesting. But the bad back design will be enough to keep me from pledging $15.

Agree Vasta, it would take some modifications to make me jump in.

nbrock · Unread post by **nbrock** » Sun Jun 16, 2013 7:42 pm

Hey Guys - I'm Chris... the designer of The Type Deck

Really appreciate the feedback on the deck, over the weekend I've actually been looking at re-designing the backs. I've also tried forming the logo into an ambigram but its kind of becoming 'forced' and I dont want that feel. I do however agree totally on the backs and how it needs to be changed.

Would you mind if I post up some images of development on here for some opinions/suggestions?

Thanks again!

Chris

Unread post by **vasta41** » Sun Jun 16, 2013 7:48 pm

nbrock wrote: Would you mind if I post up some images of development on here for some opinions/suggestions?

Chris, of course not! That's what this site is all about. Let's see what you've got. The fact that you don't want to "force" something that isn't working is a good sign IMO

Unread post by **MagikFingerz** » Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:19 pm

Welcome to the forum, Chris!

Images would be most welcome. Ambigrams have been done enough before, and I think the back would look great without any text at all. Less is more, I say

nbrock · Unread post by **nbrock** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 2:27 am

Here's what I've been looking at over the weekend. The mirrored pattern still needs some more attention but at least you guys can picture what i'm thinking.

As this is a typography based card deck, I kind of feel it needs to have some form of typography shown on the backs, but not too crazy like before. Maybe like B or C?

No.4 - this has an extra shadow pattern behind. I like this one, but I don't think if I was to use this, i'd have to rethink the tuck box etc and from looking at the quotes, It will add another $1,000 for the additional foil colour to the existing 3 (if it hits the target).

What are your opinions / suggestions?!

Thanks!

Frequenter · Unread post by **Frequenter** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 5:14 am

Anything but B.

I'll back it either way though, I love this!

Mon Jun 17, 2013 5:42 am

C looks great... nice and subtle but works perfectly. Nice job.

Unread post by **vasta41** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 5:49 am

JPMiddleton wrote:C looks great... nice and subtle but works perfectly. Nice job.

+1 I like D also. I would back either. Great job!!

Firthetic · Unread post by **Firthetic** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 6:38 am

vasta41 wrote:
JPMiddleton wrote:C looks great... nice and subtle but works perfectly. Nice job.
+1 I like D also. I would back either. Great job!!

Another vote for C right here! It's still a one-way back due to the pips though, right? Not that I mind - but some people might not want to Kickstart your deck because of that.

Verloren · Unread post by **Verloren** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 6:45 am

A or C for me.

Unread post by **MagikFingerz** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 7:55 am

Definitely not B, and I feel that D becomes too "busy" somehow. I still prefer the simplicity of A, but I would probably still get one if you went with C.

Becky C · Unread post by **Becky C** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:33 am

One more vote for C

Unread post by **badpete69** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:12 am

I like D

Widdee · Unread post by **Widdee** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:26 am

A vote for C here.

charlie81dbz · Mon Jun 17, 2013 12:14 pm

Frequenter wrote:Anything but B.

I agree with Frequenter. I don't really have a preference out of the other three, they all look nice. I think C is a good choice though if you wanted to still keep the name of the deck on the back, it's definitely more subtle than the original back. I like D a bit better than A, but I can see how some might find it too 'busy'.

charlie

nbrock · Unread post by **nbrock** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 12:50 pm

Great feedback guys! I'm drawn to C & D the most but Ideally C because it will keep it all uniform with regards to the pattern. So thats great that the majority agree on C!

I'm going to try and figure out how to overcome the pip issues. I'd love to include as many collectors as I can. Not sure if it's do-able though..

Thank you all once again!!!

Unread post by **Sharpie** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 2:09 pm

I like D for it's depth (AND complexity).
But it would be nice to incorporate some "type" somehow, without writing out the name of the deck.
Perhaps changing the faded pips to an alphabet of letters in various fonts (2-way of course). Keeping the theme AND the details alive.

Frequenter · Unread post by **Frequenter** » Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:51 am

Sharpie wrote:I like D for it's depth (AND complexity).
But it would be nice to incorporate some "type" somehow, without writing out the name of the deck.
Perhaps changing the faded pips to an alphabet of letters in various fonts (2-way of course). Keeping the theme AND the details alive.

I like this idea! Not sure if it would come out looking as awesome as it sounds, but it sounds brilliant.

nbrock · Unread post by **nbrock** » Tue Jun 18, 2013 12:04 pm

Well, after looking at different routes for the backs...I think this is the final. There are plenty of other versions but I want balance in the design and it's very difficult to achieve that with this pattern! However, this one is looking v promising! What do you guys think?

Cheers!

DukeBoy · Unread post by **DukeBoy** » Tue Jun 18, 2013 12:31 pm

nbrock wrote:Well, after looking at different routes for the backs...I think this is the final. There are plenty of other versions but I want balance in the design and it's very difficult to achieve that with this pattern! However, this one is looking v promising! What do you guys think?

Cheers!

Well My 2 Cents is that 1) if your back and front boarders ar not going to match then you might as well make the backs blead of the edge(which I know might be difficult for USPS to cut correctlly but the black boarder just looks out of place, & 2) the logo should be brought little more in from the edge replace the club under it with the logo.

The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPCC KS

The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPCC KS

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Re: The Type Deck - Typography Playing Cards printed by USPC

Who is online