E revamping Vintage Series 1800?

george · Unread post by **george** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 8:55 am

I received the latest Ellusionist wholesale newsletter last night. Inside it contained a blurb about a "replacement version" of the series 1800 to be released in the next two months. I have a strong hunch it's related to the USPCC rider back trademark issues that have come about as of late. Check it out for yourself (The blocked out areas show the pricing structure)

We will be releasing a replacement version of the Vintage deck to our retail customers some time in the next 8 weeks - so the only place they'll be able to get these originals... is through you.

Which E back design do you think would look best as a vintage deck? Or do you think we're in for a Mandolin-style vintage deck? Ugh. November will tell.

Eoghann · Unread post by **Eoghann** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 9:12 am

This is hands down my favorite "stuffed in the attic for centuries" themed deck.
What's this rider back trademark issue you mentioned?

I don' understand what they're replacing if they're overstocked.

george · Unread post by **george** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 9:21 am

Eoghann wrote:This is hands down my favorite "stuffed in the attic for centuries" themed deck.
What's this rider back trademark issue you mentioned?

I don' understand what they're replacing if they're overstocked.

When Jarden bought USPCC, they enacted stricter policies where custom decks were no longer able to "modify" the rider back design in their decks. Some of the "art" gaffs like a blurred rider back or any other modifications to the rider back were no longer able to be produced. The best description that I've heard was to envision the rider back design as a rubber stamp. Anything that modifies the shape of that stamp would not be allowed, since it will weaken their trademark. The Merz "Trace" decks, and others, are OK because they keep the rider back design intact and just use different colors, while the "aging" effect on the 1800s involves drawing cracks into the design of the deck. My assumption is that is what is prompting the modification of the deck.

Regarding the over-stocked / clearance discrepance, I see what you're saying. Maybe they already got the new design in-house and it's sitting in the warehouse until the current stock sells through. USPC custom division often gets backed up during the end of the year in advance of the holiday season. I wouldn't be surprised if E ordered the decks in advance to ensure there weren't any shortages during the Christmas season.

George

Eoghann · Unread post by **Eoghann** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 9:49 am

Oh yeah! I remember someone mentioning something like that. But I thought it only applied to decks with greater modifications to the rider backs like Tokidoki for instance. Didn't think aging would apply. Well I'm interested to see what changes they'll make. Thanks!

jerichoholic · Sat Aug 30, 2014 11:02 am

I can see it now, Artifice 1800s

AceOfHearts · Unread post by **AceOfHearts** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:14 pm

jerichoholic wrote:I can see it now, Artifice 1800s

Ha-ha nice.
But they had 50% off month ago (don't remember when exacly) for everybody you can buy a brick for 3.50ea deck....

Unread post by **MagikFingerz** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 8:39 pm

george wrote:
Eoghann wrote:This is hands down my favorite "stuffed in the attic for centuries" themed deck.
What's this rider back trademark issue you mentioned?

I don' understand what they're replacing if they're overstocked.
When Jarden bought USPCC, they enacted stricter policies where custom decks were no longer able to "modify" the rider back design in their decks. Some of the "art" gaffs like a blurred rider back or any other modifications to the rider back were no longer able to be produced. The best description that I've heard was to envision the rider back design as a rubber stamp. Anything that modifies the shape of that stamp would not be allowed, since it will weaken their trademark. The Merz "Trace" decks, and others, are OK because they keep the rider back design intact and just use different colors, while the "aging" effect on the 1800s involves drawing cracks into the design of the deck. My assumption is that is what is prompting the modification of the deck.

Regarding the over-stocked / clearance discrepance, I see what you're saying. Maybe they already got the new design in-house and it's sitting in the warehouse until the current stock sells through. USPC custom division often gets backed up during the end of the year in advance of the holiday season. I wouldn't be surprised if E ordered the decks in advance to ensure there weren't any shortages during the Christmas season.

George

IIRC, this was the reason they started making gaff decks with the Maiden backs instead of the Rider backs.

Personally though, I can't imagine cracks being that big of a deal relative to gaffs and other direct modifications like the Playboy Rider backs and such that makes much more changes than just random cracks across the back.

Sat Aug 30, 2014 10:13 pm

Actually, all of this is very close to the 'official party line', which is in their most recent version of the "Bicycle Branding Guide" ("Custom_Bicycle_standards.pdf") for Custom Decks. You just can't obscure or reshape any of the branding any more, and the rider back is indeed one of those registered trademarked items that you can't modify in any way (except color, as noted). No stretching, no redrawing, even specific minimum and maximum sizes for most of the design elements, like the "Bicycle" logo arch, with or without "Since 1885" underneath. Whether you put "Trusted since 1885" or just "Since 1885" is a matter of how large the arch is, for example. This one falls under the "unacceptable" changes to the brands, in this case specifically because it 'dilutes' the brand. I tend to disagree on this one, but it's not up to me. Here's a clip off page 13 of 22 of the latest "Bicycle Custom deck Branding Guide":

george · Unread post by **george** » Wed Oct 01, 2014 7:36 pm

With all of the really cool decks coming out, I feel like a dork for being so curious about what the heck E is doing with these. They've posted teaser pics of the fronts of the new boxes. They appear to be Bicycle branded, which leaves me wondering what back design they're using.

https://www.facebook.com/ellusionist/ph ... permPage=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Eoghann · Unread post by **Eoghann** » Wed Oct 01, 2014 7:46 pm

Thanks for the update!

Gareth · Unread post by **Gareth** » Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:10 pm

george wrote:With all of the really cool decks coming out, I feel like a dork for being so curious about what the heck E is doing with these. They've posted teaser pics of the fronts of the new boxes. They appear to be Bicycle branded, which leaves me wondering what back design they're using.

https://www.facebook.com/ellusionist/ph ... permPage=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hey, we're all card geeks here

... you don't need for feel like a weirdo for wondering what's up with a deck

I'd assume they'd use the Mandolin back if they can't use the Rider back? Many people can't see the difference at a glance (or sometimes even when you point out it's not the Rider back) - so it makes kinda sense if they just want a distressed version of a standard back. OTOH, maybe E want to completely control their own destiny with some other custom design - although the benefit when the tuck is completely tied to USPCC anyway may make it moot.

Maddest Hammer · Thu Oct 02, 2014 12:44 am

Not really sure what they're teasing here, the tuck looks exactly the same, right down to the missing "N" in "performace".

volantangel · Unread post by **volantangel** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 1:44 am

HAHA was there the missing N in the original tucks?

Maddest Hammer · Thu Oct 02, 2014 3:19 am

volantangel wrote:HAHA was there the missing N in the original tucks?

Yes, looking at one right now. Amazing how little things get missed. Amazing that E has gotten a pass all this time, and others are hounded into submission...

volantangel · Unread post by **volantangel** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 4:15 am

Haha i think we have a much keener eye than in the past, and this deck came out pretty long ago, people just werent paying that much attention to the details. Still better than spelling the name of the deck wrongly XD (Carpatbia any one?)

Maddest Hammer · Thu Oct 02, 2014 5:55 am

volantangel wrote:Haha i think we have a much keener eye than in the past, and this deck came out pretty long ago, people just werent paying that much attention to the details. Still better than spelling the name of the deck wrongly XD (Carpatbia any one?)

True, but I have a blue deck with red seal dated 2012, a red one with blue seal dated 2013, and just got a blue one with blue seal dated 2014. So when they changed the tuck to show the new copyright date, for 3 years, they missed it. It's hard to spot, cuz your brain wants to think "performance" so maybe that's why...

Unread post by **MagikFingerz** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 8:45 am

volantangel wrote:Haha i think we have a much keener eye than in the past, and this deck came out pretty long ago, people just werent paying that much attention to the details. Still better than spelling the name of the deck wrongly XD (Carpatbia any one?)

Also Piraue

samwisethegray · Tue Oct 07, 2014 7:42 pm

Got an email from Black Club saying they are marked 1800s. Available to the public soon.

jerichoholic · Unread post by **jerichoholic** » Tue Oct 07, 2014 8:47 pm

Available to members right now, i'm guessing will be available to everyone else tomorrow. Seems like they often do Wednesday releases. And oh yeah, Madison is the spokesperson for the new decks it seems.

ecNate · Unread post by **ecNate** » Tue Oct 07, 2014 11:46 pm

Clever back design.

can't unsee now, but it's not obvious.look close, but shhh don't ruin the fun.

I want one now since legends screwed up the Egyptian backs.

Unread post by **Cbkimble** » Wed Oct 08, 2014 2:05 am

I thought it was very obvious but I knew what to look for too. Good eye though Nate.

Eoghann · Unread post by **Eoghann** » Wed Oct 08, 2014 8:55 am

Can the eagle eyed please point out to the naked mole rat eyes what I'm supposed to be looking for?

Looks like a standard rider back to me.

cosmicsecret · Unread post by **cosmicsecret** » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:04 am

Eoghann wrote:Can the eagle eyed please point out to the naked mole rat eyes what I'm supposed to be looking for?
Looks like a standard rider back to me.

hmmm...look at the cracks in the design on the corners. they are different on each card shown in the fan.

ecNate · Unread post by **ecNate** » Mon Oct 27, 2014 7:14 pm

I found them IMPOSSIBLE to read the markings for about 5 minutes. Until I looked closer at the tuckbox and saw a 2013 date. Yup, they sent me the WRONG deck! I did get a proper blue marked one and that was so much easier to read!

Firthetic · Unread post by **Firthetic** » Mon Oct 27, 2014 8:15 pm

ecNate wrote:I found them IMPOSSIBLE to read the markings for about 5 minutes. Until I looked closer at the tuckbox and saw a 2013 date. Yup, they sent me the WRONG deck! I did get a proper blue marked one and that was so much easier to read!

Hahaha that's funny though, you must've been worried about your vision