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

So Roman Kotiv posted the following picture to the United Cardists Facebook group today of their new upcoming deck. No name given yet but he posted the picture with the line "Are you ready to hunt for treasure?". Also Roman just said to me on Facebook that it is going to have double freaking foil. I know that Roman and NPCC have worked to a new Branle edition which is going to have foil on it so I am guessing that this is the one, although I could be wrong. Here's two pictures anyways.





I hope that Roman could tell us a bit more?

None of my NPCC decks fan that well!

JuFiN wrote:None of my NPCC decks fan that well!

Well I have said this before that I can't to a thumb fan so I don't know about that but all my NPCC decks fan just fine on my one handed fans which I am pretty good at. I have faned them with the whole deck, with half the cards, with 2/3 of the cards and I have no issues with the one handed fans, once you break the cards in that is. The Defunctorum clumps up a bit but it is in a different stock which they haven't used since.

I hate to be negative so I'll try to put this as delicately as I can: foil or not, that is probably the least attractive card back that I have ever seen. I may be in the minority but foil alone does not necessarily make a design attractive. I would use la Chat Noir as an example: minimal foil that really highlights the rest of the design; makes it pop, if you will. I find that far more attractive than, say the latest David Blaine offering with its completely foiled back.

The back design is no where close to the least attractive back I've ever seen. I like the back design just fine, very classic. From the prototype, the dual foiling looks very crisp and well registered - I'm very curious to see how well NPCC can execute foiled cards. I'm a sucker for foil, so I'm really looking forward to these. It does appear that the stamping of the foil is embossing the stock to a pretty significant degree, hopefully the impression doesn't bleed through to the front of the cards too much like on EPCC decks, or at all like USPCC Metallux. Whether this deck will be a must buy or not will depend on how custom the courts are and the price. Hopefully there will be good news on both those fronts. So far, I'm really liking what I see.

I like the foil back too. I hope the faces give the color swirls and curves proper context.

I don't fan, flourish, or cardistry so I'm more into the courts, pips, backs, tuck designs. Any NPCC weakness vs. the "big 3" don't bother me.

sinjin7 wrote:The back design is no where close to the least attractive back I've ever seen. I like the back design just fine, very classic. From the prototype, the dual foiling looks very crisp and well registered - I'm very curious to see how well NPCC can execute foiled cards. I'm a sucker for foil, so I'm really looking forward to these. It does appear that the stamping of the foil is embossing the stock to a pretty significant degree, hopefully the impression doesn't bleed through to the front of the cards too much like on EPCC decks, or at all like USPCC Metallux. Whether this deck will be a must buy or not will depend on how custom the courts are and the price. Hopefully there will be good news on both those fronts. So far, I'm really liking what I see.

+1

JuFiN wrote:None of my NPCC decks fan that well!

+1

flashcards wrote:I hate to be negative so I'll try to put this as delicately as I can: foil or not, that is probably the least attractive card back that I have ever seen. I may be in the minority but foil alone does not necessarily make a design attractive. I would use la Chat Noir as an example: minimal foil that really highlights the rest of the design; makes it pop, if you will. I find that far more attractive than, say the latest David Blaine offering with its completely foiled back.

I understand where you're coming from. I think it's the colors used for the foil or foil just looks good with only one color.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/89 ... n=65e8748e" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's the Kickstarter preview link. So it is a new Branle deck. 5 color options, limited to 20 decks per color, the smallest print number for a custom deck so far? Oh and tuck cases have a real gem stone attached to them. They are syntheticly made but still real gem stones, not dyed glass.

I'll try to get one red deck.

After looking at the KS preview link, I think I know what is a little off about the backs...its the color of the back with the foil, it just doesn't wow. The first picture of backs on the KS project page looks great with the darker stock, but I think that is just the lighting and the stock is actually still off white. Other than that, I do appreciate Roman pushing the boundaries with his cards and will still most likely back for an Emerald deck if I can get one.

Any idea of launch date and time?

Launch date: Monday 23.1 10.00 am Pacific time

Agreed, Sherman, that darker stock/background makes them pop much more.

In any case, $75 is WAY out of my league. But if I was made of money, I'd get 2 of each

If that first photo on the KS page is supposed to be an off white tone like Shermjack noted, I think it should be taken down as it seems incredibly misleading to the actual deck back shown in the below KS page shots. Even if it is just trying to highlight the back foil design it seems pushed too far.

If one of the decks backs is actually that dark tone of grey, sign me up! it's stunning.

If the picture of the backs in the first photo on the KS page is an accurate representation, then I stand corrected. It looks like a very pleasing design and the gold and red highlight each other nicely. However, the plain looking back pictured with the Ace of Hearts does not impress at all. I realize that lighting and photography make a huge difference and that it is sometimes difficult to get an accurate representation on a computer, especially with a rendering. Therefore, I am more than willing to suspend judgement and give these the benefit of the doubt. Of course, at $75 each I won't be pledging, especially since the artwork is the same as the Royal Branle. None the less, I wish all concerned the best of luck with the campaign.

I like it and would go for all 5 decks, but not at 375$. All or nothing.
The funding goal is just 500$ to produce 100 decks? Interesting that they need to sell only 7 decks to get this funded.
NPCC should print more then 20 of this beauties to make it cheaper and available for more people. I guess they could use this as a chance to make a name for themselves on their way to step up to the big 3 printers (as USPCC, EPCC & LPCC never made a deck with double foil or i'm wrong ?) but this is hard if only less then 100 people can get their hands on this decks. A printrun of 75/100/125 whatever... each color would still be pretty limited but they can reach much more people and would reduce the costs.

$75 each? Why make them so limited that most people will be unable to get them and most people are priced out as well?

rorschach wrote:If that first photo on the KS page is supposed to be an off white tone like Shermjack noted, I think it should be taken down as it seems incredibly misleading to the actual deck back shown in the below KS page shots. Even if it is just trying to highlight the back foil design it seems pushed too far.

If one of the decks backs is actually that dark tone of grey, sign me up! it's stunning.

I asked about the gray vs white back and Roman said "Backs are white. This photo is just a low lighting to catch shine of foils."

RichK wrote:I asked about the gray vs white back and Roman said "Backs are white. This photo is just a low lighting to catch shine of foils."

Still a nice back, but too bad one of the decks didn't have that dark grey, i'm assuming for cohesiveness.

Azid wrote:The funding goal is just 500$ to produce 100 decks? Interesting that they need to sell only 7 decks to get this funded.
NPCC should print more then 20 of this beauties to make it cheaper and available for more people.

This is the problem with people using Kickstarter these days. This is obviously not a situation where a company needs capitol to give them the boost to make their product a reality, but rather a manipulation of Kickstarter's built-in marketing reach to make a quick buck. Seriously, if you, as a company, are so tight that you don't have even the $500.00 to finance a project, you shouldn't be in business. This funding goal is a complete sham, as is the intentional artificial rarity of this deck.

I would have a lot more respect for this campaign if they produced 2000 standard dual colored foil backed cards priced at $35.00 per deck with an $8,000.00 funding goal, with 100 ultra-limited edition decks with fake jewels glued onto extra-fancy tucks available for those who love to throw money at blingy tucks.

Or even if they had the balls to stay off Kickstarter and self-fund 100 decks at the $75.00 price point and sell the decks themselves (saving the 10% KS fees) and ship them out as soon as we buy them.

sinjin7 wrote:

Azid wrote:The funding goal is just 500$ to produce 100 decks? Interesting that they need to sell only 7 decks to get this funded.
NPCC should print more then 20 of this beauties to make it cheaper and available for more people.

This is the problem with people using Kickstarter these days. This is obviously not a situation where a company needs capitol to give them the boost to make their product a reality, but rather a manipulation of Kickstarter's built-in marketing reach to make a quick buck. Seriously, if you, as a company, are so tight that you don't have even the $500.00 to finance a project, you shouldn't be in business. This funding goal is a complete sham, as is the intentional artificial rarity of this deck.

I would have a lot more respect for this campaign if they produced 2000 standard dual colored foil backed cards priced at $35.00 per deck with an $8,000.00 funding goal, with 100 ultra-limited edition decks with fake jewels glued onto extra-fancy tucks available for those who love to throw money at blingy tucks.

Or even if they had the balls to stay off Kickstarter and self-fund 100 decks at the $75.00 price point and sell the decks themselves (saving the 10% KS fees) and ship them out as soon as we buy them.

Couldn't have said it better

Sinjin just nailed it. How can any company not have $500 to produce a deck? KS is opening the door for the lazy business man. Guess that nowadays anyone can be a "business" man, just put it on KS, if it sticks then produce it if not, well it was worth the try!

I would just like to add, since their decks handle very poorly, maybe this is a way for them to go... Just do limited decks that noone will use for anything other than look at, and you may get your space in the business....

sms69x wrote:KS is opening the door for the lazy business man.

That door has been open for a long time. KS projects all fit on what I call a genuine-lazy spectrum. There's everything from the actual fundraising for new and innovative products, to established producers not wanting to let go (e.g. KW), to this project, to the straight up pre-orders. It's up to each of us to decide where we draw the line, because KS sure as hell doesn't care as long as they get their cut.

Hello friends
First of all, thank you for your interest on this deck.
Now, because of many questions regarding this project, let me make everything clear:
It was designed for Kickstarter make/100. Besides that, those decks are complex in every aspect of production, which requires tremendous amount of time – from tucks and to cards itself (double foils on cards backs = double production time = double cost). Producing 500 or 1000 decks will not help to bring price down, as every technological process has its own cost, and just don’t scale.
Branle Tesoro is our technological statement, experiment (will it become popular/desired deck?), example what we are capable of, if you want. We had no intensions to make it mass produced deck. Some of the features will be used in our next projects, some may not. Only thing I can tell for sure – we will continue to work and do our best to bring new cool stuff, new experience for the community.

-Roman

Might be a good idea for this campaign to offer a cheaper add-on deck without all the bells and whistles?

The cards may very well be amazing, but at the rarity and price nobody is going to open the deck to appreciate them.

rorschach wrote:Might be a good idea for this campaign to offer a cheaper add-on deck without all the bells and whistles?

The cards may very well be amazing, but at the rarity and price nobody is going to open the deck to appreciate them.

Roman (Noir Arts) said the band will be openable and the seal will be on the band. No seal to stop you from opening the box. Band, in theory, is recloseable. Slot A tab B kind of thing.

Now live

sinjin7 wrote: I would have a lot more respect for this campaign if they produced 2000 standard dual colored foil backed cards priced at $35.00 per deck with an $8,000.00 funding goal, with 100 ultra-limited edition decks with fake jewels glued onto extra-fancy tucks available for those who love to throw money at blingy tucks.

First of all, don't be ignorant in your statements and read carefully before you say something. Those are synthetic (!) jewels. Not fake, not imitation. SYN-THE-TIC. You can gooogle it, or read project description

Second, it up to us how and how many decks to produce.

Third: this campaign is for only "ultra limited" decks. And as I stated in my previous post, it is a proof of what we are capable of. Cannot say for sure, but we have plans to produce deck with foiled backs, not that limited

If you don't like it - don't support. There are a lot of people who likes it and who will appreciate these decks in collection. Simple.

sms69x wrote:I would just like to add, since their decks handle very poorly, maybe this is a way for them to go... Just do limited decks that noone will use for anything other than look at, and you may get your space in the business....

Everybody knows that you hate everything we do. The only thing that remains a mistery to me - what is your problem? why you keep posting your "expert opinion" on subjects, you are not interested in? I personally don't give any attention to decks I don't like

rorschach wrote:Might be a good idea for this campaign to offer a cheaper add-on deck without all the bells and whistles?

Good question. Yes, we are planning to introduce more traditional deck with foiled backs

Like I said before, Branle Tesoro is our technological statement, experiment (will it become popular/desired deck?), example what we are capable of, if you want. We had no intensions to make it mass produced deck. Some of the features will be used in our next projects, some may not.

best,
Roman

NoirArts wrote:

sinjin7 wrote: I would have a lot more respect for this campaign if they produced 2000 standard dual colored foil backed cards priced at $35.00 per deck with an $8,000.00 funding goal, with 100 ultra-limited edition decks with fake jewels glued onto extra-fancy tucks available for those who love to throw money at blingy tucks.

First of all, don't be ignorant in your statements and read carefully before you say something. Those are synthetic (!) jewels. Not fake, not imitation. SYN-THE-TIC. You can gooogle it, or read project description

Second, it up to us how and how many decks to produce.

Third: this campaign is for only "ultra limited" decks. And as I stated in my previous post, it is a proof of what we are capable of. Cannot say for sure, but we have plans to produce deck with foiled backs, not that limited

If you don't like it - don't support. There are a lot of people who likes it and who will appreciate these decks in collection. Simple.

First of all, I assure you I always read carefully before I make any posts here at UC. These are synthetic (!) jewels, not real, merely imitation. F-A-K-E. To me, a synthetic jewel is a fake jewel, in that neither are natural or real. If you go to Tiffany's and try to hype up the value of a SYN-THE-TIC diamond compared to a real diamond, then you'll get laughed out of the store like the ignoramus that you would be. But I'm not going to get caught up with semantics with you. If you prefer to use the term SYN-THE-TIC because it makes you feel better as opposed to the synonymous term, F-A-K-E, that's your prerogative, but it doesn't change the fact that none of your jewels are real.
PO-TAY-TO, PO-TAH-TO.

For me, it comes down to this: Why are you even on Kickstarter? Surely you don't need the $500 to get started. Why not actually produce your 100 decks first, and then sell them to your customers when they are immediately availale? This way people don't have to wait 4+ months after they pay before finally getting their decks, and you don't have to give Kickstarter their cut. When I see people or established companies (ab)using Kickstarter as a crutch when they don't have to, it makes me suspect they are more about placing their own convenience ahead of the convenience of their customers.

As to your final point about not buying if I don't like - DONE! This may be the only thing we'll agree upon.

sinjin7 wrote: First of all, I assure you I always read carefully before I make any posts here at UC. These are synthetic (!) jewels, not real, merely imitation. F-A-K-E. To me, a synthetic jewel is a fake jewel, in that neither are natural or real.

Right, "to you". For everyone else, who is analyzing information prior making any conclusions or statements - it is not.

It is important to distinguish between synthetic gemstones, and imitation or simulated gems.
Synthetic gems are physically, optically and chemically identical to the natural stone, but are created in controlled conditions in a laboratory. Imitation or simulated stones are chemically different than the natural stone but may be optically similar to it; they can be glass, plastic, resins or other compounds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemstone# ... _gemstones

sinjin7 wrote:For me, it comes down to this: Why are you even on Kickstarter? Surely you don't need the $500 to get started. Why not actually produce your 100 decks first, and then sell them to your customers when they are immediately availale? This way people don't have to wait 4+ months after they pay before finally getting their decks, and you don't have to give Kickstarter their cut. When I see people or established companies (ab)using Kickstarter as a crutch when they don't have to, it makes me suspect they are more about placing their own convenience ahead of the convenience of their customers.

Backers won't have to wait 4+months to receive these decks. We've started Kickstarter campaign so people could find these decks and support. Not because of money, but because of introduction and support. Branle Tesoro won't be produced UNLESS we gain enough supporters. That's the main idea of this project and Kickstarter overall.