Cardstock quality

Elven

A Rant ...

I have today 'paid off' the last payment for a deck. Anticipation is high on opening the heavy beautiful laminated sturdy coloured box, a ribbon holds the book in place - and I pull its satin tab, as the book fits snuggly into its designed compartment. Underneath are the cards.
I take the celophane paper carefully from the cards - and hold them in my hand - they are light - actually 'very' light.

I peel the first one off the top of the deck - it feels flimsy and fragile. With a firmer grip between two fingers the card flexes slightly - Im not happy. Then I realize I am holding not one, but two cards :bugeyed: and I am disappointed to say the least. The cardstock is disgusting!

Matt board - dull printing, gutter edges, thin and useless to me in their brand new condition - I look through them, attempt a shuffle. The cards flex and bend better than Jane Fonda! so sadly, I put them back in the box.

Why bother!

I am over it! Seriously over cheaply made 'decks of cards' which cost a fortune, whose card stock and laminating or lack of quality surface is dismal - I've had it! The box is great, the book is good, and the tools are dreadfully manufactured. Cheap bending cards!
The playing decks I buy for $2.00 (and there are two packs) are better!

Yes, I'll be writing to somebody! as I will have to laminate these cards myself for them to be any use. Or I may send them back!

Its not the first deck I've purchased over the last year or so which seem to lack quality - but this is going too far - professionally - they are unusable for me.

Manufucturers? Publishers? ...is this what we can start to expect now from the quality of our decks?? Its not good enough!!!
Put the money into the cards and not all the packaging and bling if it has to be, but some decks are no more than thick paper!

I buy my cards from the readings I do ... I have to pay a new deck off - very rarely do I purchase one outright - I'm not in the position to do that. It is infuriating to find that the deck is this bad.

Please consider the quality of the cards as a priority. You're investment in your product will show good return and further custom.
Rant over!

:)
 

suedeheadsmiths

I agree

Wow, I can't believe someone feels the same way as I do. I just ordered a new deck of cards, and while I was talking to US Games I asked why the original RWS is so flimsy while my Universal Waite and Crowley are of very good stock. The lady said well it may be that I just got a bad deck. I told her I've seen and used other original RWS decks besides mine, and it's the same flimsy crap. I'm gonna be upset if my new Lord Of The Rings deck is as crappy as the original RWS. Glad someone agrees.

Chris
 

baba-prague

Well, we keep trying different stock. We always use proper playing card stock (inner carbon layer and all that) and we put a HUGE amount of effort into getting sharp, bright printing; I think our print quality is second to none. But the stock is an endless problem (or has been, we have high hopes of the new supplier we are trying out this autumn). It's actually not easy for small-run publishers to get good stock at below-ruinous prices. The playing card manufacturers are buying it in hundreds of times the numbers that we can.

The basic problem is, you know, that as the dollar falls it becomes almost impossible to produce a deck that can be sold for $20, and that's the very low price which people like US Games and Llewellyn set as the "norm" - so everyone is, I guess, frantically economising - or ceasing to do tarot. But, we've gone the other way and bought more expensive, and STILL not been entirely happy with its "bendiness". On the other hand, the good news is that many people like our cards so I suppose we are getting it close to right now.

Anyway, another deck, another supplier. We'll see!
 

AJ

Elven, please tell us what deck it was...you are making me very nervous about one I just ordered.
 

starrystarrynight

Yes, I agree with you, too, Elven.

There are decks I LOVE but won't use because of two things: thin stock and large size. (The Druidcraft (size) and Fantastic Menagerie (thin) come to mind...I think they are wonderful decks, but they are too hard to handle and shuffle--for me! So, I lay them aside and don't use them regularly...and I so wish I could be comfortable with them!)

The two decks I love most for the size and heavy stock are the Quest Tarot and the Robin Wood. I go back to them again and again because of the tactility (is that a word?--you know what I mean--the size and feel of them. They're sturdy, even if a little large for my hands!)

I would rather be able to comfortably read with any deck whose artwork I adore, but more and more I find that isn't possible. But shuffling is an integral part of my reading and grounding. I find I want to be able to shuffle easily or I don't want to read at all.

Here is my personal wish list:

Weight: Card stock in line with that used by Robin Wood or Quest Tarot
Size: Approx. 2-3/4" x 4"

But, of course, I know that everyone would have ideal dimensions of their own, so I will probably continue to use those decks that fit my hands the best!
 

Gavriela

I've only had the Fantastic Menagerie for a little bit, but I like both the size and the way the cards handle. They're much easier for me to shuffle than heavily laminated decks - maybe I'm just a gentle shuffler.

Still, I've ordered another copy - just in case and because with a small-press run I know it will be hard to find in future so best to do it now. I've regretted not having a second copy of a beloved deck more than once, and I'm trying to get a few more than my trusty Waite-and-Thoth.
 

Elven

Thanks for the replies - I was so angry when I got home I had to say something, as I feel that the benchmark is slipping, if it was a one off deck, I can understand, but I now have more than one deck which I consider unusable to work with professionally - and some publishers, and producers of decks are churning them out like lollies, and maybe 'not' considering the amount of use a good deck gets. Tarot cards are one thing I do seriously love, and new cards in Australia are not cheap to buy.

This is not about the decks which come out and the cards are superb quality - useable, and in 10 years time will be able to still hold their own.

Chris said:
Wow, I can't believe someone feels the same way as I do. I just ordered a new deck of cards, and while I was talking to US Games I asked why the original RWS is so flimsy while my Universal Waite and Crowley are of very good stock. The lady said well it may be that I just got a bad deck. I told her I've seen and used other original RWS decks besides mine, and it's the same flimsy crap. I'm gonna be upset if my new Lord Of The Rings deck is as crappy as the original RWS. Glad someone agrees.

Hi Chris :)
I think you LoTR cards, unless USGames have changed the card stock - should be fine ;) I have used my 'alot' and they are holding up well - though the black edges are chipping white, they are not as bad as the ones I am talking about. The LoTR Taiwanese cards are not as thick a card stock, bit the finish is very good, but they are curving slightly after so much use. But I understand your concern - you deck should be fine :)


baba prague said:
Well, we keep trying different stock. We always use proper playing card stock (inner carbon layer and all that) and we put a HUGE amount of effort into getting sharp, bright printing; I think our print quality is second to none.

Hi baba :)
Yes, the colour and quality of your cards is apparent :), and I think there lies the answer too - alot of research into what you produce and a consistency - which you are aware of - especially from the readers point of view, and the purchaser in general.

baba said:
But the stock is an endless problem (or has been, we have high hopes of the new supplier we are trying out this autumn). It's actually not easy for small-run publishers to get good stock at below-ruinous prices. The playing card manufacturers are buying it in hundreds of times the numbers that we can.

I can understand the difficulty in price differences - where more costs less - and quality can verse quantity - and the price of producing the cards is such a consideration.

baba said:
The basic problem is, you know, that as the dollar falls it becomes almost impossible to produce a deck that can be sold for $20, and that's the very low price which people like US Games and Llewellyn set as the "norm" - so everyone is, I guess, frantically economising - or ceasing to do tarot.

It is like our dollar here - we are not getting value at all for the money we spend. Its becoming very rare to find a new deck which is under $39.00 - this does not include a book (yes, the LWB), but I am watching prices jump - as the quality of the card stock falls - though the packaging is becoming more apparent ... Larger boxes which are sometimes filled with a huge amount of space - vying for shelf space and noticeability - and the cards I feel themselves are suffering due to this.

The deck I purchasd has all the great packaging - large and lovely to behold - but as a consumer (which we all are) the card stock is a huge let down.

baba said:
But, we've gone the other way and bought more expensive, and STILL not been entirely happy with its "bendiness". On the other hand, the good news is that many people like our cards so I suppose we are getting it close to right now.

:) I understand, and patiece trial and error can play a big part of getting the formula right - even if there is a variation due to the market when the deck finally goes into production, costs rise (or fall - though not often ;)) distribution prices - it is variable indeed. You have the standard and wouldn't compromise.

The deck I have purchased is from a respected author, and the artist, although I am not familiar with, has done their work well. But their hard work wont benefit (MHO) from the end result which is culminated in the cards, and this is a shame. As an author and artist, I would feel let down, concerned and even startled if this was my deck - especially knowing that there has been a pre-standard set before, and the cards are not the same quality, not better, but less than expected :(

I think Im just putting out the call for consideration - as this seems to be something which has effected a few new and beautiful productions.

.. and more-so, my clients comment :bugeyed: (they dont have to say anything, but a cards bends on them while they're shuffling, and they are not all used to handling cards, and its the glance to me to see if I saw that, or are they doing it 'right'. I take notice - and I reassure them that its OK - keep shuffling and focus .... I dont want to have to make excuses for the card manufacturer for the quality of the deck Im about to read for them with - it is to some, a reflection of the reading - sound bizzarre? Not so.

...and they look at me and appologize - "Oh, Im sorry, I didnt mean to bend the card, I hope I didnt hurt it" ... "Thats OK" I say, "I didnt hear it scream" ... LOL :p ... or if a card drops on the ground ... (I work outdoors in a courtyard) ... I cant image some of the thinner card stock repelling moisture at all ... I dont want my clients attention defered from what they are doing, due to another distraction such as bending my cards or thinking they have 'done something' to them. Other decks are fine ... they hold up to being dropped on the ground and being shuffled in all manners of ways ... it doesnt sound like much until you experience what a thin flimsy card can do in a reading.

Old worn sturdy decks and handled with care and respect by clients, new flimsy decks are a problem.

AJ said:
Elven, please tell us what deck it was...you are making me very nervous about one I just ordered.

:D There is more than one deck out there with this problem, so Im not pointing the finger - Im asking for consideration to this element of the cards ... I wouldnt like to see it become the standard - and there are some brilliant card manufacturers.

I think my concern is because they are the tools of my trade, I expect them to be of reasonable quality and I am noticing a decline. My cards are kept like Kings and Queens (Im sure there's a pun there, but its not intentional :p) - in hand painted lined boxes and in bags or silk cloths. But when its time to work with them - they have me to deal with, and I need to be able to use them, and I am a heavy shuffler - I make no bones about that - but thats where the quality of the card stock really comes into play for me - I notice the difference.

:)

I have calmed somewhat - I had to have a sleep - now comes the time to do something - decision time ... I will laminate the cards, and contact the publisher ... I bought them for a reason, and maybe thats why - so I could have a rant!! LOL! Maybe I'll ask the cards 'why' after a gentle bendy shuffle :p It is skill building if nothing else.

Blessings Elven x
 

baba-prague

starrystarrynight said:
There are decks I LOVE but won't use because of two things: thin stock and large size. (The Druidcraft (size) and Fantastic Menagerie (thin) come to mind...I think they are wonderful decks, but they are too hard to handle and shuffle--for me! So, I lay them aside and don't use them regularly...and I so wish I could be comfortable with them!)

Oh, it's a shame, but oddly we very rarely have anything but good comments on the Fantastic Menagerie cardstock. It is the VR that tends to be a bit "whippy" (don't know how else to describe it, it's actually pretty tough but has a lot of "whip" in it somehow), though it's exactly the same stock as all the other decks (since way back on Tarot of Prague second edition) but from a different supplier and different batch, which can make a difference.

The other problem we have of course is that our cards are large and the larger they are the thinner the stock feels - this is, I think, the issue with the Druidcraft. We have spent six MONTHS looking for a stock for See of Logos, which will have very large cards, and we still haven't found anything we're really happy with that we can actually get (some of the very thick stocks can only be bought by the small warehouse-load - not exactly what we need for 1000 decks!)

Anyway, useful conversation I think.

Edited to add. We think that in future we will try to print "Gold" editions (assuming we do them) on thicker stock - as we can afford to spend more on the basic production there. The BBCats Gold is on a thicker stock than any we've used so far. But a different supplier - so we will see how it actually comes out!
 

Elven

Hi SSN :D

SSN said:
There are decks I LOVE but won't use because of two things: thin stock and large size. (The Druidcraft (size) and Fantastic Menagerie (thin) come to mind...I think they are wonderful decks, but they are too hard to handle and shuffle--for me! So, I lay them aside and don't use them regularly...and I so wish I could be comfortable with them!)

Yes, this is also something which can make using the cards difficult. The cards stock for these cards (not the cards above, but the cards I purchased) could have been strudier if the cards weren't as large, but they aren't an overly large size card - fairly standard size ... but I understand where you're coming from.

SSN said:
The two decks I love most for the size and heavy stock are the Quest Tarot and the Robin Wood. I go back to them again and again because of the tactility (is that a word?--you know what I mean--the size and feel of them. They're sturdy, even if a little large for my hands!)

yep, there are some cards which I feel akin too - right size and card stock quality - even some which are not (Visconti sforza) maybe the right size are still useable - but what I found with this 'new' card stock which is being prefered to manufacture cards with, is that it is not going to get the chance to even get 'used' to - unless I laminate them ... and this is a concern.

SSN said:
I would rather be able to comfortably read with any deck whose artwork I adore, but more and more I find that isn't possible. But shuffling is an integral part of my reading and grounding. I find I want to be able to shuffle easily or I don't want to read at all.

Understandable and agreed.

I was just thinking there are also decks, (not necessarily Tarot though), which are the opposite as well - which took me some time to wear in ... the ones which are thicker than toast bread :p but I find these can be worn down with use and become managable ... in contarst to the thinner card stock with no chance of wearing them in before they are too flimsy to use.

Blessings Elven x
 

starrystarrynight

baba-prague said:
The other problem we have of course is that our cards are large and the larger they are the thinner the stock feels...
That is exactly right and something I hadn't thought about!

I do love these two decks so much, though...I do want to make that clear. It is merely the shuffling that I have trouble with when I use them, and like I said...shuffling is a very important part of the process for me.

Edited to add:

baba said:
Edited to add. We think that in future we will try to print "Gold" editions (assuming we do them) on thicker stock - as we can afford to spend more on the basic production there. The BBCats Gold is on a thicker stock than any we've used so far. But a different supplier - so we will see how it actually comes out!
I will look forward to investing in these gold editions, for sure! Thank you!