i have a question . . .

[hikeeba]

This is why I say to each their own. I owned v1. Played a few games of cribbage with them. Was 'meh' about them - sold off what I had. When they first came out, ppl didn't like the twin D's but others defended it saying that they said they designed a deck for themselves so they should have their initials on it. Personally, I don't want D's junking up my deck. So, as far as I am concerned, the whole line of S&M has sucked from day one. To me there is nothing redeeming in their little vanity project.
With db's backs, the spades are literally split to form his initials, but it's subtle enough that they look just like spades (although the design looks remarkably close to the Arizona Diamondback's logo). With D&D it's two big ugly unavoidable D's.

"i just don't understand why these things are so vilified, other than their creators are less than honest," is you defending them because it means you cannot understand how someone could not like the deck. Simply - other people don't like the tired, lazy, repetitive backs.

And I can't imagine you really don't get the comments about the volumes of the last three series that were printed. (And now 10,000 more!)

[reckone1999]

As for re-colorations, I don't have a problem with multiple color variations of good decks, the more the merrier. But don't make them out to be something more than that like the Bucks do. Even in their most recent hype leading up to the launch of v.7, D&D claimed each successive version were ground-breaking innovations. No they weren't, they're just different colors. Other designers who make multiple color variations don't make claim to such pretentious bullshit. That is the difference.

[quote/]

but so what? okay they hype things beyond their actual capacity, i still fail to see what this has to do with the actual deck though. if the deck sux it sux regardless of how great the seller says it is.

You're clearly a fan of D&D, so you overlook all that bullshit and it doesn't affect your preference for their decks. And that's fine. Own it, its your personal preference and its right for you and don't let anyone else tell you otherwise.

[quote/]

that's a complicated statement, i flourish and them having created some of the most brilliant and beautiful flourishes i respect their creativity, innovation (in this regard) and i like their earlier smoke and mirrors creatiions, and don't hate the later ones, it might surprise even you, that i only have a v3 set and a damaged v4 and 1 open v5 and 1 open v6. so i don't even own that many of the later editions, die hard fan boy i am not. a statement saying "clearly i'm a fan of d&d" is very vague, a fan of their business practices? no. do i hang their pictures on my wall? no. it's as if this is black and white and either you're with them or against them. lol

Having said that, your original question was why do the S&M v.4-6 get so much flak while other color variants don't receive the same hatred. I think the answer for most people is obvious and only the most die-hard fanboys don't get it.

here your passive agressiveness is showing, the original question i asked is obvious except for "die hard fan boys", implicating me as such. i've already demonstrated i'm not a die hard fan boy.

i'm a person capable of seperating shit that doesn't have anything to do with the other. that's why i asked for everyone to respond with things that don't have to do with their character, and to which you admited you couldn't do except to say their boring, which is fine, but everyone keeps bringing all the other shit into it.

[reckone1999]

This is why I say to each their own. I owned v1. Played a few games of cribbage with them. Was 'meh' about them - sold off what I had. When they first came out, ppl didn't like the twin D's but others defended it saying that they said they designed a deck for themselves so they should have their initials on it. Personally, I don't want D's junking up my deck. So, as far as I am concerned, the whole line of S&M has sucked from day one. To me there is nothing redeeming in their little vanity project.
With db's backs, the spades are literally split to form his initials, but it's subtle enough that they look just like spades (although the design looks remarkably close to the Arizona Diamondback's logo). With D&D it's two big ugly unavoidable D's.

"i just don't understand why these things are so vilified, other than their creators are less than honest," is you defending them because it means you cannot understand how someone could not like the deck. Simply - other people don't like the tired, lazy, repetitive backs.


And I can't imagine you really don't get the comments about the volumes of the last three series that were printed. (And now 10,000 more!)

it's like i'm taking crazy pills, where the hell am i defending them?

i'm opposing the logic.

they're not the only one guilty of the repetitive backs, and that is my point.

[hikeeba]

did everyone hate the design so much?

Alright - going back to your original post, I will say that this is my vote.

If you were to give me a free multi-colored brick, I would take artisans, split spades, even bicycles over these.

From a review by sinful on decknique back in Aug '08: "Look: As most people have said... they do look better in person. However, one thing I used to like.... but not so much now are the 2 D's in the center. My name is Doug so it's not too big of a deal. For others, I have been saying you could just say it's from the D&D Card Company if anyone asks, but no one really ever does. However, is this a work of art? Most certainly not. In reality it's a bunch of cool looking swirls with 2 big D's. If S&M are pieces of art, then Centurions, Guardians, and Split Spade decks should be considered masterpieces and be hung in an art museum."

Now, if they had gone with these: I might have a different opinion.

[alric]

i'm a person capable of seperating shit that doesn't have anything to do with the other. that's why i asked for everyone to respond with things that don't have to do with their character, and to which you admited you couldn't do except to say their boring, which is fine, but everyone keeps bringing all the other shit into it.

That's because "all the other shit" does make a difference for most people. I already said if you take all subjectivity away, then the S&Ms (and every other deck) are just pieces of paper. But you can't just look at it that way if you really want an explanation of why people don't like the Bucks or their products anymore. You keep maintaining the marketig crap has nothing to do with the decks and you're capable of separating the two, but the truth of the matter is they are intertwined which influences how people feel about the decks.

We're just going in circles now, so there's no point in any further comments from me. You like the v.4-v.6, I (and others) don't. I find them boring and uninnovative and the Buck's shadiness makes me dislike those decks even more, you clearly disagree. I think we'll just have to leave it like that.

Just in the interest of full disclosure, I really admired the Bucks, they were pioneers in cardistry and magic and I was a fan. This is why my disappointment in them is heightened so much more. They're sell-outs. Their website is just a shrine to themselves. The day they sold fingernail clippers for the price they do told me is wasn't about the craft anymore but just purely about hard cold cash. This S&M v.7 fiasco is the final nail in the coffin.

[reckone1999]

did everyone hate the design so much?

Alright - going back to your original post, I will say that this is my vote.

If you were to give me a free multi-colored brick, I would take artisans, split spades, even bicycles over these.

From a review by sinful on decknique back in Aug '08: "Look: As most people have said... they do look better in person. However, one thing I used to like.... but not so much now are the 2 D's in the center. My name is Doug so it's not too big of a deal. For others, I have been saying you could just say it's from the D&D Card Company if anyone asks, but no one really ever does. However, is this a work of art? Most certainly not. In reality it's a bunch of cool looking swirls with 2 big D's. If S&M are pieces of art, then Centurions, Guardians, and Split Spade decks should be considered masterpieces and be hung in an art museum."

Now, if they had gone with these: I might have a different opinion.

thank you for going back to my original post, and i respect your decision and that's all i was asking for. and i too posted that pic on here wishing those were real!

[reckone1999]

i'm a person capable of seperating shit that doesn't have anything to do with the other. that's why i asked for everyone to respond with things that don't have to do with their character, and to which you admited you couldn't do except to say their boring, which is fine, but everyone keeps bringing all the other shit into it.

That's because "all the other shit" does make a difference for most people. I already said if you take all subjectivity away, then the S&Ms (and every other deck) are just pieces of paper. But you can't just look at it that way if you really want an explanation of why people don't like the Bucks or their products anymore. You keep maintaining the marketig crap has nothing to do with the decks and you're capable of separating the two, but the truth of the matter is they are intertwined which influences how people feel about the decks.

[quote/]

We're just going in circles now, so there's no point in any further comments from me. You like the v.4-v.6, I (and others) don't. I find them boring and uninnovative and the Buck's shadiness makes me dislike those decks even more, you clearly disagree. I think we'll just have to leave it like that.

Just in the interest of full disclosure, I really admired the Bucks, they were pioneers in cardistry and magic and I was a fan. This is why my disappointment in them is heightened so much more. They're sell-outs. Their website is just a shrine to themselves. The day they sold fingernail clippers for the price they do told me is wasn't about the craft anymore but just purely about hard cold cash. This S&M v.7 fiasco is the final nail in the coffin.

i completely empathize with you, as i witnessed their rise too, i don't know if their site constitutes a shrine persay, it's a business and their trying to make a "buck", just not an honest "buck".

see what i did there.

[siegismyname]

I personally like the v4-v6. Although they said it was the next big thing, they did not sell it for an exorbitant price. It was still the same $5.95 or $4.95 per deck (couldn't remember). They were also very nice people so I wouldn't mind supporting their products. Whats more, The cards themselves handle great and thats what I mainly use them for.

I like the comparison with the artifice. Why isn't anyone complaining about them?

Can I also add on about the split spades? They tally-ho split spades, Bee split spades and the split spades lions now also fetch a pretty high price. They are basically the same back design. Not even a re-colouration. The Aces, jokers and some court cards are different but the first 2 uses standard USPCC aces. But people are still paying good money for them. Don't get me wrong. I love the Split spade series and I have all of them.

I guess in art, there will always be people who like something and others who dislike.

[lordlupus]

I guess the way S&M V7 are sold pissed off the V3-6 resellers and completists. For the flippers, their hoard of V3-6 will not command as high a price unless you can find a hardcore S&M completist who is still willing to spend more to get the originals. As for the S&M completists, they are forced to spend $84 to complete their collection instead of buying just one deck.

It is not a matter of recolouring or overhyping. D&D made 2 mistakes in the V7 launch: they re-print V3-6 with the same colourway AND they are forcing collectors to buy 6 decks at a higher than average price to complete their S&M collection. That is why the carbon uncut is sold out, the completist can spend $27 for the carbon deck instead of $84 to get 5 decks that they already have from the original run.

Neither DB, Seasons nor E are doing the mistakes D&D did.

[reckone1999]

I guess the way S&M V7 are sold pissed off the V3-6 resellers and completists. For the flippers, their hoard of V3-6 will not command as high a price unless you can find a hardcore S&M completist who is still willing to spend more to get the originals. As for the S&M completists, they are forced to spend $84 to complete their collection instead of buying just one deck.

It is not a matter of recolouring or overhyping. D&D made 2 mistakes in the V7 launch: they re-print V3-6 with the same colourway AND they are forcing collectors to buy 6 decks at a higher than average price to complete their S&M collection. That is why the carbon uncut is sold out, the completist can spend $27 for the carbon deck instead of $84 to get 5 decks that they already have from the original run.

Neither DB, Seasons nor E are doing the mistakes D&D did.

valid

[dazzleguts]

i just don't understand why these things are so vilified, other than their creators are less than honest.

That IS why they're so vilified, because the creators are douches. You accurately listed all their detestable behavior, then you say you don't understand why they are so detested? Take away who made and marketed the S&Ms, then all you have are pieces of paper.

which is exactly my point, i'm buying the pieces of paper, not the people who created them.

i mean let's be honest while they're guilty of being dishonest ever since back in the days when they told ellusionist that they would make the trilogy an E exclusive, and then went on to sell it on not only their own personal website, but every other that would buy it as well. a lot of companies are guilty of far worse.

i don't know if anyone was familiar with the high rate of suicide of people who were working in the China Iphone factory due to horrific working conditions, but it makes dan and dave look spiffy clean.

yet the majority of people still buy iphones.

or the inhumane way animals are kept in very confined spaces on modern farms, yet people don't bitch too much about that and continue buying food from them.

i guess my point is exactly what you said, they're pieces of paper, and whether or not i like them is what drives me to buy them, while the shady and often stupid practices of the people who make them is a distant concern for me. because as with the other examples i pointed out it's really small potatoes in the grand scheme of things.

thomas edison while brilliant was an a hole, but i don't see anyone saying i'm not going to use lightbulbs anymore, that stupid jerk! lol

I like that you pointed out Thomas E's a-holedom but buying something originally invented by someone long dead is different from supporting current damaging and exploitive business practices (no small potatoes in my opinion). I don't have an iphone and I don't eat meat for the personal ethical reasons you yourself mention. I have bought from the twins a couple of times but have since decided I don't want to support them either. It's a personal decision. Unfortunately it's almost impossible to live in North America without buying into something exploitive and/or unethical, but we can try.

[reckone1999]

i just don't understand why these things are so vilified, other than their creators are less than honest.

That IS why they're so vilified, because the creators are douches. You accurately listed all their detestable behavior, then you say you don't understand why they are so detested? Take away who made and marketed the S&Ms, then all you have are pieces of paper.

which is exactly my point, i'm buying the pieces of paper, not the people who created them.

i mean let's be honest while they're guilty of being dishonest ever since back in the days when they told ellusionist that they would make the trilogy an E exclusive, and then went on to sell it on not only their own personal website, but every other that would buy it as well. a lot of companies are guilty of far worse.

i don't know if anyone was familiar with the high rate of suicide of people who were working in the China Iphone factory due to horrific working conditions, but it makes dan and dave look spiffy clean.

yet the majority of people still buy iphones.

or the inhumane way animals are kept in very confined spaces on modern farms, yet people don't bitch too much about that and continue buying food from them.

i guess my point is exactly what you said, they're pieces of paper, and whether or not i like them is what drives me to buy them, while the shady and often stupid practices of the people who make them is a distant concern for me. because as with the other examples i pointed out it's really small potatoes in the grand scheme of things.

thomas edison while brilliant was an a hole, but i don't see anyone saying i'm not going to use lightbulbs anymore, that stupid jerk! lol

I like that you pointed out Thomas E's a-holedom but buying something originally invented by someone long dead is different from supporting current damaging and exploitive business practices (no small potatoes in my opinion). I don't have an iphone and I don't eat meat for the personal ethical reasons you yourself mention. I have bought from the twins a couple of times but have since decided I don't want to support them either. It's a personal decision. Unfortunately it's almost impossible to live in North America without buying into something exploitive and/or unethical, but we can try.

it wasn't the greatest example, but people were buying them back then.

oh and cheers to your ethical lifestyle.