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

Hi everybody, this is my first post here and I hope I'm writing in the correct section.

I'm working on designing a deck which I hope to crowdfund. Fans of card magic are my target audience for this deck. I hope it will be a regularly used "workhorse" deck, not an art/collectors deck. To that end, I have several considerations which I hope you guys can help me with.

Regular riderbacks are used by the greatest performers with no marking and symmetrical backs. On the other hand, there are decks like the Mint deck or the Knights which feature marking systems and in the case of the Mint deck, a one-way back. I myself use riderbacks. However I would like to know how much of a dealmaker it is to have a marking system and/or one way back for a magician.

Thanks

Pushkar

I can't speak as a magician myself - but I would think it depends on the effect / trick you are trying to pull off.

If you want to really appeal as a workhorse / toolbox deck then may be have multiple editions of the same deck on offer?
v1. A symmetrical unmarked deck, standard (or near standard) faces
v2. A symmetrical MARKED deck, standard (or near standard) faces (and otherwise identical to v1)
v3. A gaff deck - same unmarked back, but 56 assorted gaff/reveal cards on the face (fewer if you have more than one deck colour and the gaff deck would facilitate colour swaps etc)

Any workhorse deck will generally be a cheap deck, ergo Riderbacks. It fulfills the necessary "requirements" of cheap, standard faces and it's familiar.

I think the RAVN decks are fantastic, because they have nicer, but standard looking faces and a custom back that's really cool. The fact that RAVN and Stolkholm 17 team up for a Kickstarter is probably to mainly subsidize her personal stockpile so that she can use it as a regular deck.

When creating your own, or one you want to sell, I would go without a marking system, because ideally you'd like to get the poker and art collectors to possibly buy. With a marking system, poker collectors are less likely to buy. Hopefully, you decide on your own personal take on standard faces.

Appreciate your replies very much guys!

TGunitedcardists wrote:Any workhorse deck will generally be a cheap deck, ergo Riderbacks. It fulfills the necessary "requirements" of cheap, standard faces and it's familiar.

I think the RAVN decks are fantastic, because they have nicer, but standard looking faces and a custom back that's really cool. The fact that RAVN and Stolkholm 17 team up for a Kickstarter is probably to mainly subsidize her personal stockpile so that she can use it as a regular deck.

When creating your own, or one you want to sell, I would go without a marking system, because ideally you'd like to get the poker and art collectors to possibly buy. With a marking system, poker collectors are less likely to buy. Hopefully, you decide on your own personal take on standard faces.

The RAVN decks were one of the decks I really looked to for inspiration and ideas. As much as I want this endeavor to be magician centered, the concern about poker collectors is very valid. I'll need to consider this. Thanks for the input here. As far as design goes, I've got custom pips and courts but its all very standard, theres no funky business going on there.

montecarlojoe wrote:I can't speak as a magician myself - but I would think it depends on the effect / trick you are trying to pull off.

If you want to really appeal as a workhorse / toolbox deck then may be have multiple editions of the same deck on offer?
v1. A symmetrical unmarked deck, standard (or near standard) faces
v2. A symmetrical MARKED deck, standard (or near standard) faces (and otherwise identical to v1)
v3. A gaff deck - same unmarked back, but 56 assorted gaff/reveal cards on the face (fewer if you have more than one deck colour and the gaff deck would facilitate colour swaps etc)

Realistically I cant expect to be able to garner enough support to mass print 2 decks. I've got some ideas for gaff cards and other magician supplements which should be a big draw for magicians. But multiple editions of the same deck is not something I can consider. I have an alternate color deck which I plan to hopefully plop on as an unlock tier on kickstarter. But as far as the main deck goes, it'll have to be either marked or unmarked.

pushkar000 wrote:Realistically I cant expect to be able to garner enough support to mass print 2 decks. I've got some ideas for gaff cards and other magician supplements which should be a big draw for magicians. But multiple editions of the same deck is not something I can consider. I have an alternate color deck which I plan to hopefully plop on as an unlock tier on kickstarter. But as far as the main deck goes, it'll have to be either marked or unmarked.

I think you're right, and I would assume that an unmarked deck would be the safest bet as a first edition. Then perhaps you could print a marked second edition at a later time, if the first deck is successful.

I also agree with TG that price is a big factor when it comes to magicians' work decks. It will need to be as cheap as possible to make someone consider going with your deck rather than $2 Bikes. This will probably also help attract collectors, as cheap fully custom decks are more of a rarity these days. Then again, the collectors who never open their decks might not be as interested, as the biggest cost cuts come from excluding premium tuck box options such as foil and embossing.

pushkar000 wrote: The RAVN decks were one of the decks I really looked to for inspiration and ideas. As much as I want this endeavor to be magician centered, the concern about poker collectors is very valid. I'll need to consider this. Thanks for the input here. As far as design goes, I've got custom pips and courts but its all very standard, theres no funky business going on there.

I would also follow a standard pip layout, similar to regular RiderBacks. Custom deck creators sometimes go with "unconventional or unique" layouts. I wouldn't do this, and for a magician, I would think this is an area where you play it safe. In addition, I'd go with red hearts and diamonds and black clubs and spades. Familiar but different, but not too different.

Let's see some of those court cards!

MagikFingerz wrote: I think you're right, and I would assume that an unmarked deck would be the safest bet as a first edition. Then perhaps you could print a marked second edition at a later time, if the first deck is successful.

I also agree with TG that price is a big factor when it comes to magicians' work decks. It will need to be as cheap as possible to make someone consider going with your deck rather than $2 Bikes. This will probably also help attract collectors, as cheap fully custom decks are more of a rarity these days. Then again, the collectors who never open their decks might not be as interested, as the biggest cost cuts come from excluding premium tuck box options such as foil and embossing.

Yeah, ultimately I've decided to go with an unmarked deck as of now. After asking around, the general concensus seems to be that either the marking system has to be very good or its not worth it - better to mark yourself. So I've left it for maybe a future project. My back design has been(or is being) altered to make it easy to use popular self-marking systems. Something like those flowers on the top of the riderbacks.

As far as pricing goes, I really don't know. Directly competing in the riderback price range is impossible. I'm targeting the $8-$10 range, which allows me to clear first of all most kickstarter decks(in any case those are all worth a lot more, since they feature a lot more artwork), plus clear around 80% of common decks from Ellusionist or theory11. I'd love a fancy tuck case, but then again, I can always put that as a stretch goal. The priority is to find a reasonable price.

TGunitedcardists wrote:

pushkar000 wrote: The RAVN decks were one of the decks I really looked to for inspiration and ideas. As much as I want this endeavor to be magician centered, the concern about poker collectors is very valid. I'll need to consider this. Thanks for the input here. As far as design goes, I've got custom pips and courts but its all very standard, theres no funky business going on there.

I would also follow a standard pip layout, similar to regular RiderBacks. Custom deck creators sometimes go with "unconventional or unique" layouts. I wouldn't do this, and for a magician, I would think this is an area where you play it safe. In addition, I'd go with red hearts and diamonds and black clubs and spades. Familiar but different, but not too different.

Let's see some of those court cards!

Here's my concept of the queen of diamonds, compared to the standard queen. My back design is purple with the dull orange, so the hair and clothes match that color scheme. Please let me know what you think. I will upload the back design at a later date for feedback(still working out the kinks) plus more courts and the jokers, once its all ready - by that I mean no concepts, the real deal. Edit : but I think the general gist of what I'm going for can be seen in this queen. I hope its something that people will like and enjoy.

At the risk of seeming arrogant, I hope to start a new "trend" - similar to the suicide king and the one eyed jack, I'd like to introduce the sleeping queen(working title).

Regarding the queen, the middle/transition obviously needs some work, because in the example, it's shifted.

The "Q" is hard to read and in a different colour than the pip. This is NOT good on both counts.

A queen without eyes, sleeping or not, is distracting.

The colour scheme you've chosen isn't one that's appealing to me, but that's a me thing.

TGunitedcardists wrote:Regarding the queen, the middle/transition obviously needs some work, because in the example, it's shifted.

The "Q" is hard to read and in a different colour than the pip. This is NOT good on both counts.

A queen without eyes, sleeping or not, is distracting.

The colour scheme you've chosen isn't one that's appealing to me, but that's a me thing.

Thanks for the criticism. You're right about the Q, its hard to read. I don't know why the color ended up different, it was supposed to be the same. The middle transition will of course be straightened out. This is a paint job. Once I've got the concept down, I'll move to illustrator and draw everything perfectly.

I'm concerned about the closed eyes and the color scheme. The color scheme has been questioned by others as well so I will need to work with my back design and figure something out.

I'll post more after working on the designs. I'm very glad for the knowledgeable opinions here.

In my opinion, one very important thing when trying to promote a workhorse deck is the cards have to be easily recognizable. When I first was getting into magic a while back I bought a fancy deck to do tricks with. The downside to it though was a tad bit hard to spectators to figure out what their card was. Just like what was said earlier, a standard pip layout is important, but I also think having face cards that are not too different from the standard design is important. That way they are easily recognizable. I think you are on the right track with the queen you have designed. In my opinion, simply just making the Q in the corner a bit more bold would make it a lot easier to read.