UnitedCardists.com - The forum for Cardistry, Magic, Custom Decks and All Things Playing Cards.

RichK wrote:3 or 4 for me. 3 bit better than 4.

+1

Ok, you guys...one more chance to pick. Here is a comparison of columns 4 and 5 from the previous image. Column 1 was the coloration being used for the premium deck (with metallic inks). Let me know if you prefer row 1 or row 2 for the standard court coloration:

and just for fun, a CMYK version... :p

I love the colors but I don't feel like they belong with the theme you're trying to go for.

I'll stick with Row 1, blue backdrop for black suit, red for red suit
As for the CMYK... that's for another day

vasta41 wrote:I love the colors but I don't feel like they belong with the theme you're trying to go for.

I agree...the CMYK doesn't work for this deck...maybe another project later. But what about the previous post?

I like them both. How about both?

The only thing I think might be better for the monochrome deck is to use the red in the non-monochrome version for the red in the monochrome version.

davegk wrote:I agree...the CMYK doesn't work for this deck...maybe another project later. But what about the previous post?

I prefer row 1.

Row 1

I REALLY prefer row 1, but row 2 would not stop me from pledging.

Row 1 by far.

CMYK is a no go for me as I don't normally like 4 color suits.

Sent from my Galaxy 8 using Tapatalk

Row 2 for me - I really like the monochrome feel of that variant.

While I think the monochrome courts look good, the color ones look WAY better IMO.

Plus when you are using a "standard" deck of cards as inspiration, I'd say most people would think of the normal color courts; like used in any standard USPCC deck.

okay, fine...it appears way more people prefer the colored courts. I've updated the campaign:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/go ... n=27d542e3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

davegk wrote:okay, fine...it appears way more people prefer the colored courts. I've updated the campaign:

Much better! Luv! Maybe red/blue background is too bright (lines thickness). Did you try four colors? One color per suit.

Well, , most of us are working on the theme 'Standard' so standard means coloured courts. However the monochrome courts are nice and good for another project. Don't give up on them.

I would really like to see a 2 deck tier.

flashcards wrote:I would really like to see a 2 deck tier.

You can add a 2nd deck as an add on (a 2 deck tier would work out to be the same as that)

Now live on Kickstarter:

Looking great, in for a deck

I posted earlier then I erased it because I didn't want to cause trouble. But after further research I realize I truly have an issue with Vanda. Their stuff isn't original and they are stealing ideas. Now I'm not talking about throw back or paying homage. That in my opinion is ok. What isn't OK is copying decks that have come out recently. Here are a few examples of Vanda's work. The original on the left Vanda on the right. You decide. BTW I had almost an exact deck to their zero deck at the Fontaine Rip N Dip Drop.

Gotta agree. To be similar in design to one deck is understandable. But to be practically a carbon copy of so many recent designs is highly suspect. Especially the Standard being a blatant copy (with an ever so slight touch up) of the Aladdins.

You're not the only one who's mentioned this. I'll stick to what's actually released/releasing products.

For the Vanda standard, it's been mentioned here that the Aladdin dome backs are his source of inspiration and he's even put it up on his KS page as a tribute. This is after someone posted here that he should do so.

As for the Zero, it's already in the thread here:viewtopic.php?f=8&t=14009&p=158767&hili ... ub#p158767
He never replied, but you could try emailing or PM. However one might say they are copying from the Japanese WW2 imperial flag. It's close, but I feel he's done enough that it's not a direct ripoff unlike the Bocopo fiasco where it's blatantly obvious. Even the meowstar V1 backs!

If you look closer at the Mundane deck IG post #s, right at the bottom you'll see #aprilfools.

Eric,

You may have a point. However, we aren't talking about one deck here. The Vanda standard I'm fine with. It pays homage and that's great. But the rest of them are too close. He changed a small element in the designs which he says earlier in the post he would never do. The circles are identical to HEI.

Identical, not quite - they're very similar but I mean they're black and white circles The Anyone deck is sort of faded and has a border; Vanda's is borderless. I guess you could make the argument that you just shouldn't make a back design so similar to another well-known deck? Same with the cube backs - they don't even really line up, they're just both based on cubes...

Just my two cents

oddsmaker003 wrote:I posted earlier then I erased it because I didn't want to cause trouble. But after further research I realize I truly have an issue with Vanda. Their stuff isn't original and they are stealing ideas. Now I'm not talking about throw back or paying homage. That in my opinion is ok. What isn't OK is copying decks that have come out recently. Here are a few examples of Vanda's work. The original on the left Vanda on the right. You decide. BTW I had almost an exact deck to their zero deck at the Fontaine Rip N Dip Drop.

First of all, Vanda is not a "they", it's a "he" and that he is me and I'm right here interacting with you directly (and we're already having a private conversation so I really don't understand why you're also posting this nonsense publicly), so stop referring to Vanda as some mysterious organization that doesn't listen, understand, or care about what is happening.

Second, do more research. You can't just go around accusing people of things without doing a proper amount of research and understanding what the f*** you are talking about. You're like a typical short-attention-spanned child who reads a shocking news article headline and then goes around on social media stirring up similar even shorter-attention-spanned responses without even reading the actual article, let alone other articles that share similar or differing opinions on the subject matter before reaching a properly-educated thoughtful conclusion given an adequate amount of data. If you were to merely read through the entire (relatively short) forum thread in which you are currently posting, you would have a much better understanding of what you are trying to talk about.

Nothing is truly original, including this phrase. As Mark Twain wrote, "There is no such thing as a new idea. It is impossible. We simply take a lot of old ideas and put them into a sort of mental kaleidoscope. We give them a turn and they make new and curious combinations. We keep on turning and making new combinations indefinitely; but they are the same old pieces of colored glass that have been in use through all the ages." And that was in a world before internet, when everyone had instant access to millions of images and ideas created by other humans.

- Your first example of similarity to the HIE deck I admit is quite similar. However, I actually had never seen or been made aware of the HIE deck before I created my back design. That said, the concept of concentric circles is certainly not original in the slightest. Just do a google search for "concentric black and white circles" and you'll see a ton of images that all look more or less identical, including some that look specifically similar to the stylized version that HIE uses. Here, I've done the search for you already: https://www.google.com/search?q=concent ... 94&bih=798. Scroll down a few lines and you'll even find this image...
- Your second example of cubes is also a relatively simplistic design concept that is far from original. In fact, my design (as I have made reference to in descriptions) was an homage to the popular arcade game from 1982 by the title of Q*bert. Once again, a simple google search for "black and white cubes" will bring up a large collection of nearly identical looking images, none of which is original: https://www.google.com/search?q=black+a ... 94&bih=798

- Your third example is an actual image THAT I CREATED AND POSTED ON MY OWN KICKSTARTER CAMPAIGN showing the comparison of the Vanda Standard back design to the Aladdin dome back design to which it pays homage (an instance that you literally just made reference to saying "That in my opinion is ok"). This specific example has already been called out and explained earlier in this thread (again, DO MORE RESEARCH).

- Fourth up is the similarity of the ZERO back design to CIRCUS playing cards. The only similarity here is the sunburst pattern, which again is not an original concept by either of these two designs. Thanks again to google for a little help here: https://www.google.com/search?safe=off& ... NT3u0ILU88. Sunbursts are used constantly by designers for many different purposes.

- Your fifth example is a comparison of the Fontaine deck to the Mundaine (parody) deck. A parody deck is SUPPOSED to look like a ripoff, that's exactly the idea...it's poking fun at something else. Mundaine was never printed as an actual production deck. However, it did start a trend continued by some other playing card designers/producers, perhaps the most popular design being Chicken Nuggets, which are clearly a parody of Jerry's Nuggets.. Look hard enough and you will find that every single deck design that comes out bears resemblance to or takes inspiration from something that came before it. Now stop wasting your time trying to make me look bad and go do something constructive with your abundance of free time.

-David

Just as a little disclaimer before someone says I'm biased, I don't own a single Vanda deck and am not a fan nor a hater of Vanda. If Standard gets funded it'll be my first deck from Vanda, because I like what David did there and he was open and clear about it throughout the whole process.

I appreciate every opinion, and therefore the post by oddsmaker003, but in this case, it's really just an opinion and not based on any facts. Therefore I have to disagree to the bone.

The reply from David is a bit harsh in some parts, but 100% true. I believe if I would be directly affected by such accusations, I would be harsh too.

I think it is hilarious and ridiculous that simple circles, cubes, lines and single letters are seen as "original" from one creator and a rip-off from somebody else. Even funnier that the A1 Headlong deck with the design from B. Thom Stevenson, who makes Xerox art (a whole art form based on copying), is seen as a original...

The pattern of the back design from the cube line deck is seen on old Japanese boxes as a decor for literally centuries, therefore the Vanda version is ironically more "original" than the cube line deck itself.

I think the recent Bocopo unveiling, made some people a bit thin skinned when it comes to accusations of stealing ideas.

I end with the words that I read as a juvenile in a book about how to become a graffiti artist, first tip was: "Don't think you are an innovator, because thousands of people did this before." - Paul107

So with your logic someone could reprint planets as long as they say made a very minor adjustment? The idea of making a deck VERY similar to an existing deck within months of the original release is disgraceful! Period! Your moral compass is clearly off. Keep doing what you are doing, I've got my popcorn awaiting the train wreck.

The homage decks isn't what I'm talking about. After a certain amount of time has passed I don't see a problem with that. But months is too soon. If you say you never saw Will Roys Circus Deck or Anyone's deck prior to creating Zero and Circles you are full of ****.

oddsmaker003 wrote:So with your logic someone could reprint planets as long as they say made a very minor adjustment? The idea of making a deck VERY similar to an existing deck within months of the original release is disgraceful! Period! Your moral compass is clearly off. Keep doing what you are doing, I've got my popcorn awaiting the train wreck.

The homage decks isn't what I'm talking about. After a certain amount of time has passed I don't see a problem with that. But months is too soon. If you say you never saw Will Roys Circus Deck or Anyone's deck prior to creating Zero and Circles you are full of ****.

If you call people names, just because you disagree or don't believe them, then your moral compass seems to be no bench mark.

I've pointed out in this thread about the similarity of the Vanda Standard with the Aladdin, and asked for the campaign to be upfront about this, so I'm very aware of the thin line of drawing inspiration vs. copying. That said, I would just like to point out that the A1 Headlong into Eternity is nothing original. There was a moment when it came out it was questioned whether it was copying the concept of Echo by Lotusinhand which came out slightly earlier than the deck, if not the same time. Back design aside, even the faces of the A1 deck is a mashup of postmortem, female, medical shots of newspaper clips and collage art rendered in high black in white contrast. And it's theme about misprints? Error from Dealersgrip had done the same. So A1 is the least to be called original.