Federal 52 - 2nd Edition

[JacksonRobinson]

I made the pips and index keys much larger as that was by far the biggest complaint of the original Feds, so much so it made them almost unusable for most table games. I made the pips much larger for Sherlock and I think they turned out great.

Jackson

[Marcus]

I made the pips and index keys much larger as that was by far the biggest complaint of the original Feds, so much so it made them almost unusable for most table games. I made the pips much larger for Sherlock and I think they turned out great.

Jackson

Can't please everyone, trust me I know! They're great the way they are, I'm just a fan of slightly smaller pips compared to this.

[bamabenz]

I made the pips and index keys much larger as that was by far the biggest complaint of the original Feds, so much so it made them almost unusable for most table games. I made the pips much larger for Sherlock and I think they turned out great.

Jackson

The small indicies and the dark faces do make the original Fed 52 decks hard to use for poker.
The Fed 52 Part 2 faces are much lighter, but the indices are still too small.
The Holmes edition is pretty much perfect, but the Moriarty set has silver indices which is a no go -- and I need a set for poker or bridge.
I'm thinking that The Independence is just about perfect for poker -- which is why I just added another brick today.

The Tally-Ho decks ought to be perfect. I'm a bit surprised that's not the design you licensed to USPCC for them to sell to casinos.

/bama

[vjose32]

Regarding the negative space, don't forget the Independence decks, i'm sure we'll get a much more highly detailed limited edition to match this one.

[sinjin7]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with negative space in a design...provided its utilized correctly. You don't know how happy it makes me to hear the Tally's will be your staple deck! When I play poker, I and my friends usually gravitate towards jumbo indexed playing cards so its easier to identify cards across the table, so from a practical point of view, larger indices are desirable. From a design point of view, sometimes its hard to make it work. I think a good rule of thumb is to make the indices as large as the design concept will allow.

[vjose32]

Don't underestimate the power if resting / negative space. I'm shooting for my tally ho deck to be my first staple deck.

How many colors will there be? lol

[SuicideKing]

The small indicies and the dark faces do make the original Fed 52 decks hard to use for poker.
The Fed 52 Part 2 faces are much lighter, but the indices are still too small.

When I play poker, I and my friends usually gravitate towards jumbo indexed playing cards so its easier to identify cards across the table, so from a practical point of view, larger indices are desirable.

Well, that is true when we play poker, and especially variations with only two cards in hands (like Texas hold'em), but large indices are a problem when playing games with more cards in hands.

[Magic_Orthodoxy]

Got nothing bad to say about this design, I hope you move forward with it - I think it's a great idea and like any successful series, the sequel is always in high demand.

[invisiblebears]

I cant wait for it to be released!

[sprouts1115]

I personally would like to see a bit more color in his Federal 52 - 2nd Edition. Sorta like in the modern 100 dollar bill. Negative space is fine, but it should be use to enhance the card. Maybe negative space could be use in the index like in the value of the 1 dollar bill. Or the negative space could be made to look like a watermark.

Screenshot 2014-05-18 08.45.32.png (44.56 KiB) Viewed 1500 times

I like the fact Jackson is making the index larger. It eliminates the need for a duplicate suit. I see why it came about because of the squeezers and you do need a large suit to distinguish the suit at a distance when playing card games like Texas Hold'em, but if you look at all the space it uses it seems redundant. Having just one rank and suit leaves more room for the artist.

Screenshot 2014-05-18 08.55.20.png (19.58 KiB) Viewed 1500 times

I tried to take it a step further by putting the rank of the card inside the suit, but it didn't take off. I think this the future of playing cards. Steal it, take it, use it...

Screenshot 2014-05-18 09.23.10.png (9.9 KiB) Viewed 1500 times

[wwpierce]

I do like the design and there is a tremendous amount of detail there, but agree that it needs a few adjustments.. or a few tweaked embellishments..It is different and I like it, but I just can't fully place what I don't like. The negative space on the courts is part of it.. Maybe the back filled in just a bit more? I don't think it needs to be so full of detail there is no negative space.. just a little less of it...

This is image below has some open/negative space, but it does not feel the same. The stamped border pulls it back in..maybe it is the white on blue..

1880longfellow.jpg (52.06 KiB) Viewed 1826 times

[merrillk]

It doesn't matter what Jackson puts out there. It will be his best work and everyone will be pleased. Even if you aren't in love with the design, you know as well as I do, that you will eventually buy it. You would rather have it in your collection than miss out. Jackson I'm all in.

[Mike Ratledge]

It doesn't matter what Jackson puts out there. It will be his best work and everyone will be pleased. Even if you aren't in love with the design, you know as well as I do, that you will eventually buy it. You would rather have it in your collection than miss out. Jackson I'm all in.

Again, that's a "Yes and no" situation. Of course it matters, if he puts crap out (and I can assure you he will not) then we wouldn't all be happy campers. That's why he is showing all of these things off here. The collective knowledge of our community has a 360 degree perspective of what cardists, magicians and collectors want.

Obviously, he wouldn't do it if he didn't think what he was doing was 100%, there's always a bit of tuning to be done even once you have the main concept all fleshed out and even if he thinks he's done, he's still got a LOT of work to do - and he does it, unlike most of the other designers/artists that just toss something out there and expect us to jump all over it. He is very good at moving around to "meet the masses in the middle", which in my mind is why he's so successful - other than of course he's just a damned great artist!

[Norbie]

I wanna see a minimalismmms designed deck from JR.

[rjtomlinson1977]

I wanna see a minimalismmms designed deck from JR.

I'm sure you will.

[Norbie]

I wanna see a minimalismmms designed deck from JR.

I'm sure you will.

I dare ya! No, I triple dare ya JR. A minimallismm deck right now!

[rjtomlinson1977]

I dare ya! No, I triple dare ya JR. A minimallismm deck right now!

Doesn't count unless it's a dog dare. Needs to be a triple dog dare.

You migt want to think before you start using the triple dog dare. Jackson can pound out very ornate work quickly as it is... if he starts doing minimallismm decks we'll see a new deck every day. We will all be broke!

[Mike Ratledge]

Check out the Crimson Arrow.

[Sher]

I absolutely love this one! Much better than the first preview, at least in my opinion.

[Norbie]

Very nice, however I'd prefer the "Dimond" under the "K". If I'm holding my cards it would be a hassle to see what suit the card is. And for the Left handlers they wouldn't see what card it is, just the suit.

[Sher]

The first preview is more functional than this one, but I like this version better. I wonder if they're two different versions? One standard and one limited? Playing card conventions (such as the pips being right under the indices) are sometimes broken if there is a good enough reason to. Aside from the location of the pips, the indices are wider than usual. The font is similar to what is used in real US Currency. I really like how this second one looks like currency - it even has the faded watermark and gold lettering! Haha to be honest, I don't care if this version is functional

[TGunitedcardists]

Very nice, however I'd prefer the "Dimond" under the "K". If I'm holding my cards it would be a hassle to see what suit the card is. And for the Left handlers they wouldn't see what card it is, just the suit.

Exactly. I like playing card conventions, and this breaks it. When playing poker, you often flip the top left corner to find out what card it is. In this case, it's a King. King of what?

[volantangel]

Very nice, however I'd prefer the "Dimond" under the "K". If I'm holding my cards it would be a hassle to see what suit the card is. And for the Left handlers they wouldn't see what card it is, just the suit.

I dont quite understand, there is clearly an area under the K to put the diamond, instead of squeezing it in the top right hand corner. Dont say the watermark is in the way, the watermark is meant to be unobtrusive.

The K looks way too fat for me, are all the fonts on american bills like that ?

[Norbie]

Very nice, however I'd prefer the "Dimond" under the "K". If I'm holding my cards it would be a hassle to see what suit the card is. And for the Left handlers they wouldn't see what card it is, just the suit.

I dont quite understand, there is clearly an area under the K to put the diamond, instead of squeezing it in the top right hand corner. Dont say the watermark is in the way, the watermark is meant to be unobtrusive.

The K looks way too fat for me, are all the fonts on american bills like that ?

What I'm saying is that as it is "now" there is no Diamond, hence why I would find it hard to use as a practical deck if it was released as it is shown here. Like you said, there is room for the diamond to be moved across under the "K" and like yourself I wouldn't find the watermark obtrusive.

When I first saw the image I though it was part of a mini-deck.

[volantangel]

Very nice, however I'd prefer the "Dimond" under the "K". If I'm holding my cards it would be a hassle to see what suit the card is. And for the Left handlers they wouldn't see what card it is, just the suit.

I dont quite understand, there is clearly an area under the K to put the diamond, instead of squeezing it in the top right hand corner. Dont say the watermark is in the way, the watermark is meant to be unobtrusive.

The K looks way too fat for me, are all the fonts on american bills like that ?

What I'm saying is that as it is "now" there is no Diamond, hence why I would find it hard to use as a practical deck if it was released as it is shown here. Like you said, there is room for the diamond to be moved across under the "K" and like yourself I wouldn't find the watermark obtrusive.

When I first saw the image I though it was part of a mini-deck.

Haha norbie ! I think it's my fault that I wasn't clear. I understand what you mean, what I don't understand is the design rationale. And I really agree with you, haha I think if you reread it now you will see it differently !

[montecarlojoe]

There only needs to be a teeny tiny diamond there, with teh 'main' suit on the right - almost the opposite of the right hand squeezer in the Deco decks.

[Sher]

The K looks way too fat for me, are all the fonts on american bills like that ?

Kinda...

[volantangel]

Thanks sher ! I guess it works because of the landscape orientation of a note, so you dont feel that its stretched out. But it is emphasized due to the portrait orientation of a playing cards.

[sinjin7]

Haha to be honest, I don't care if this version is functional

For me, if the design isn't functional as a deck of playing cards, then they're useless. These are supposed to be playing cards, not 54 miniature posters. I'm guessing these are just prototypes Jackson is throwing out for feedback, and he'll eventually get these right.

[Mike Ratledge]

Haha to be honest, I don't care if this version is functional

For me, if the design isn't functional as a deck of playing cards, then they're useless. These are supposed to be playing cards, not 54 miniature posters. I'm guessing these are just prototypes Jackson is throwing out for feedback, and he'll eventually get these right.

I agree, he'll obviously be watching how we react and exactly what we say, so in the end he's getting a whole lot of design advice here, and that's the point - we are always going to be giving advice to people that post things before they commit to producing a specific design, that's just what UC is known for - being open and honest about what we like (or don't). That will always be the case - if I have anything to say about it. I don't want people to be afraid to speak their minds nor afraid of saying something is crap, if in fact it is crap (in their opinion). The fact of the matter is that we have and always will continue to give feedback about what we want, and that's what makes the playing card deck world better.