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

Hope like hell it funds, this is a high target goal ($45K)

I was just thinking the same thing. Their last Kickstarter raised like $18,000 which I just checked. I sure hope Kickstarter engages their brain and features this campaign.

The marketing has not even launched yet guys....all good.

sinjin7 wrote:I was just about to pledge, but I took one more look at the back design and decided to hold off. This is a wonderful technology and the faces of the cards look stunning, but I just can't pull the trigger because of how unappealing the back looks. I hope this technology gets licensed out to other designers who are able to utilize it in a better card design, so I'll wait until then.

I did back for one Gold Metal Diffractor as I do love the tuck case , but I agree with Sinjin7 that the back design is really holding me back from buying more.

I also think that the campaign page needs more work as the different options available are not that clear(I.e. Does the Diffractor Level have three decks available, red, blue and black? Can't really tell as there is just a picture and no description). I only understand because I have been following the development of this deck here on UC. I also think that there should be more tiers available, especially reward tiers that have a bundle of things as the add-on chart is quite confusing.

Regardless, I hope it funds as this technology is really cool! Best of luck!

I love the technology.
Court cards are meh, standard. (not bad)
Tuck cases are aslo meh.
Technology/advances come at a price, but on the high side of what I'm comfortable with, unless I love the project.

Abhor/hate/detest the back design.

I hope other artists get a chance to use this technology too.

TG

That's serious words right there, re the card back design...tell us what you really think, come on! But anyway....as I said before...not for all....we are aiming clearly at a younger crowd here, who associate with this scene. Anyway, art can be provocative and sometimes that is part of it's final impact. To be quite honest, at the pixels allowed here on UC you can't get a great look at the intricacy of the pencil art of that centre part....in real life it is sharp and very detailed.

The other thing about this new card back is that it is that a vast amount of the appeal will come from the sunbeams all lit up with transparent holographics...which, as pointed out here before, are just not possible to replicate with any renderings. So what I can say with certainty is that the card back will be far more attractive in real life than it appears on these rendered images. I'm not a fan at all of renderings and i wish we could have had the whole thing already made prior to presenting it....but that's one hell of an undertaking and was not possible this time, given the outlay we are talking.

We delivered last time and I'll be damned if we don't surpass that standard of delivery in the final product this time. The Gold Metal Diffractor box was made and is what we achieve...renderings don't do our cards justice, at all.

Also, what I think is being overlooked (again due to renderings etc and a little underdone presentation and marketing so far)...is the Gold Diffractor deck.....we have for the first time ever on a card back....GOLD FOIL and TRANSPARENT HOLOGRAPHICS side by side....again renderings do not at all do this justice....

Let's try this....we are working on a few images to get across what the card back final effects will be and will post these on KS too soon. In fact we'll keep improving the presentation right the way through. So here are a couple of bonus images for people consideration of what the Gold & Gold Metal cards will be like:

So, the first of the images in the post above, shows the areas where we are placing GOLD FOIL on the card back (with no holographics lit up, for clarity). The second image shows the same card back with holographics lit up. So they are side by side and will be damn fine looking when done, I'd put my house on it!

Another absolute first ever in the playing card industry as well of course

Cheers

VXD, first of all good luck with your new campaign!

Please don't overestimate marketing. I don't think that "younger crowd " is your target. This deck is made for old fashioned classic playing card collectors. That is why this party on the back is not what they are looking for.

From the presentation point of view - using holographics means something bright and fresh but I see a lot of black colors on renderings and on the back itself. Try to render using a white background OR/AND try to make the picture brighter and better in details (bigger)...some wear glasses #PlayYourCardsBRIGHT !

All the best!!!

Montenzi

It's for everyone who wants one...it's as simple as that. We've not designed it to exclude anyone....it's just a bit of art.

Cheers

$40 for one deck shipped... ouch. But you can't argue the technology. Pledged! Finally looking forward to receiving this deck in a traditional tuck. Good luck.

Hey Vasta

We got there in the end! Thanks for your pledge! Looking forward to getting one in your hands.

Cheers

I did notice something interesting about your campaign. First of all, kudos for a very clean and simple KS! But if there are only going to be 750 each red, blue, and black, what if more people select one color over the other? And what if more than 750 select red, for example? Are you going to limit the amount in a BackerKit afterward?

Vasta

I think I know what your getting at, so I hope this answers your question:

IF we reach the goal of $45 000, we will make a minimum of 750 of each Diffractor, 499 Gold Diffractors and 499 Gold Metal Diffractors.

But once past the $45 000, we will produce exactly as many as are pledged for, with the fall back of the above minimums. We have more flexibility as we don't work with any traditional playing card factories.

Does that answer your query??

Cheers

VXD wrote:Vasta

I think I know what your getting at, so I hope this answers your question:

IF we reach the goal of $45 000, we will make a minimum of 750 of each Diffractor, 499 Gold Diffractors and 499 Gold Metal Diffractors.

But once past the $45 000, we will produce exactly as many as are pledged for. We have more flexibility as we don't work with any traditional playing card factories.

Does that answer your query??

Cheers

Yes- thank you! May I make a suggestion? I think if you put a copy of the actual patent on your campaign that it might help. That's a pretty cool achievement IMO and something to show off!

Well I actually said the other day, we should put the prototype Gold Metal case on our hardcopy patent document and take some photos, as it's got a pretty nice cover to it (gold stamped etc)....I think we may add that pic at some point.

Cheers

Like others, I love the technology and hope to have a deck in my collection one day using it! But it won't be this one, to my eye, every single element of design is either standard, boring, or ill-conceived. If you're aiming at a younger crowd than either you have a pretty dim view of the younger generation or just have an old man's clueless idea of what they are. Like film executives. I'm 25, I see this and I think, damn, 60 year old poker players will LOVE this. Not trying to be harsh, I just think you maybe need a little perspective, and also to maybe hire an artist/designer with a head full of ideas who can do the technology justice. But it's possible you're approaching this and V1 as your equivalent of a tech demo and the real stuff is coming later after the technology is thoroughly proven, costs reduced, and then licensed out to designers/producers, I can see the value in that. Personally I would have wanted a double whammy out of the gate, shock and awe rather than just the shock (at the price for a tech demo).

Adonael wrote:Like others, I love the technology and hope to have a deck in my collection one day using it! But it won't be this one, to my eye, every single element of design is either standard, boring, or ill-conceived. If you're aiming at a younger crowd than either you have a pretty dim view of the younger generation or just have an old man's clueless idea of what they are. Like film executives. I'm 25, I see this and I think, damn, 60 year old poker players will LOVE this. Not trying to be harsh, I just think you maybe need a little perspective, and also to maybe hire an artist/designer with a head full of ideas who can do the technology justice. But it's possible you're approaching this and V1 as your equivalent of a tech demo and the real stuff is coming later after the technology is thoroughly proven, costs reduced, and then licensed out to designers/producers, I can see the value in that. Personally I would have wanted a double whammy out of the gate, shock and awe rather than just the shock (at the price for a tech demo).

I think that your words are a little harsh. I'm personally not interested in the design because, other than the Golden Knights, the theme of Vegas does nothing for me. I think that the final product will definitely be appealing, far more than the renders can do justice, though.

Ladies & Gents

The campaign will not fund, it looks like to me. I watch trajectories and momentum of other projects always and I generally can spot when a project will not meet it's goal. We're holding off on all marketing now....not wanting to fire ammo into a black hole.

So......we are listening to the very strong card back opinions and are considering speaking to our factories and asking what the extra cost would be (to us, not backers) to offer all backers an Option A (the day-club scene) OR Option B (the fountain / hotel scene from Mk.1)...

So this would be Option B to backers:

Where's Option C NO SCENE.. That would buy you some pledges

I'd like to hear some constructive input.

Would backers here, who have said that the centre-artwork image is absolutely not for them, be in if Option B was available?

Cheers

Badpete

No scene is indeed Option C and involves cancelling the project currently. I'd like to hear about Option B from people first.

Thanks

As someone who is backing the campaign, I’m not a fan of the back design and agree with many of the others here that the DJ scene doesn’t due it for me. That being said, I’m still backing it. However, if the back was better I could see myself pledging for a lot more decks, not to just collect, but to also use.

Option B is certainly a better option in my opinion. However, I do agree that a third option with no picture, but instead a graphic or pattern in place of the current scene would be the best option.

Spectre wrote:
Option B is certainly a better option in my opinion. However, I do agree that a third option with no picture, but instead a graphic or pattern in place of the current scene would be the best option.

I also agree with this. I don’t how well the current card backs are or will be received by other “young people,” but I personally (21 years old) don’t really like it. That may be the card collector side of me. Though I do enjoy EDM and have been to concerts, I have to say this card back is not as great as the Vertex backs.

I would prefer option B over the current version. Honestly, I agree with the others and something else. I am really backing it because of it's ground breaking technology than it's design, which is a bit of a shame. If it had artwork that really grabbed folks, then this could be an awesome home run. Even so, the price point will limit some folks. I do hope you retain the gold cases. I know they are expensive and probably few will buy them, but they are very distinctive and I think will be well-received by the serious collectors.

I really want to see your work see the light of day again as I missed out on the first campaign. You would have to work really hard to keep me away.

With a $45k goal, it'll be tough to fund with a mediocre design, regardless of technology.

Considering the iridescent and pearlescent decks out there, I already have cards with a similar holographic (obviously not exact) look to them. Without some truly great artwork, I just don't have the funds for this.

I haven't backed it yet but back B is the one I would think of pledging for. I've spent way to much on my card this month.

BTW / FYI

The metal case level is the thing that is really selling and will absolutely remain part of any future project. Just as was the case last time, the tuck backers who were so vocal about having standard tucks, have not at all stepped up to support.

That is a serious consideration now as well, for when we cancel. Last time we couldn't deliver tucks due to factory organisation / time pressures to fulfill...this time, I'm very seriously considering removing them altogether, due to clear lack of support for them (and despite them being the most affordable level).

VXD wrote:BTW / FYI
That is a serious consideration now as well, for when we cancel. Last time we couldn't deliver tucks due to factory organisation / time pressures to fulfill...this time, I'm very seriously considering removing them altogether, due to clear lack of support for them (and despite them being the most affordable level).

I wouldn't jump to conclusions about the tuck before re-evaluating the rest of the project. I have mentioned that I don't like the back design and am currently in the project for the gold case, which is pretty damn awesome as I own a FDI case and LOVE IT. Normally, I would have considered backing for one of each of the tuck offerings, but because the back design is so unappealing, I am holding back. In other words, let's see what you have to offer as a deck before you decide on what options for that deck will be as you may have many new backers with a better back design.

Also, have more tiers/pledge options so that people don't have to deal with the add-on charts, which are quite daunting.

Best of luck with the re-launch, I will be in for a Gold Case Deck at least.

I have not been one of the more vocal members about the tucks. As you know, I missed out on your first campaign and bought the first decks second hand at a pretty hefty markup. I did that as a collector. I felt that these were decks I needed in my collection.
I feel the same with the current offering and pledged for one metal case. I also increased my pledge to include two each of the standard tucks. Again mostly just to include them into my collection. However, as mentioned, if the back design was better, I for one, would increase my pledge to buy more standard tuck case decks not for my collection, but to use these decks. As your moto says, play your cards bright, I would love to. But as they are now, I won’t use these cards for playing.
I think it really comes down to the back design. The same folks that were so vocal about the tucks in the last campaign are the same folks that are now telling you that that card back needs to be better before they will come on board. While the technology involved is awesome, at this price point, to get people to fork over the money, the back design has to be awesome too! Once you manage that, I think you will get a lot more backers to support not just the metal case, but also the standard tuck decks as well.
As to the current campaign, I think it could just meet the threshold with some marketing. With a better back design (that appeals to a broader audience than just DJs) and marketing, this thing could easily hit $100k. I do agree with Shermjack that if there was more and varied pledge options, that would definitely help. Such as an option for one of each standard tuck, two each, one of every thing (metal, gold and each color standard), a brick option etc...

I would have preferred just one regular tuck design. I was honestly thinking anyway about reducing my pledge to just one regular tuck, more as a cost issue. The reason I like the regular tuck, is it gives me the option of having one set of cards I can sort of feel okay about opening and admiring the holographic foil. Heck, you could put them in a plain white generic tuck for all I care.

I wasn't going to weigh in, because I hadn't planned on backing, but since you're asking.

Yeah. That back kills it for me. Either scene.

I don't mind spending the money for something I love.
I don't mind buying something with art I don't like if it's cheap.
I'm not dropping the money on something I flat out dislike. It doesn't appeal to me at all.

It gives a clip art on a sports car feeling.