Card thickness

Zipgun

I've started looking at different printers and it seems a lot of them offer cards with 300-310 gsm thickness. TGC offers cards with a gsm of 269, which seems to be thin. Is thicker than 310 gsm better?
 

gregory

I'm not sure; LoS stock isn't thick at all and is very durable; other thicker stock from other publishers is less so. Ask for samples, I would.
 

Rose Lalonde

There's some discussion of gsm beginning with post 14 of this recent thread. If they're correct that regular playing cards are on 300gsm stock -- and I think they are -- then 269 does sound way too thin.

The Tyldwick Tarot is on 350 gsm, which I only know because it's noted on the website. I don't have that deck, but people seem to like the cardstock.

(EDIT: I think Shenzhen Wangjing printed both the Wild Unknown and Victorian Romantic, both of which have great cardstock. The WU cardstock is my favorite of any, though I have no idea what the multiple gsm information at that page means.)
 

spiralingcadaver

I'm currently in the process of getting a deck printed (the marseille deck kickstarting in this subforum): 350 GSM is standard for tarot cards: 300 is for playing cards, and a bit light weight for larger cards, and we're planning on 400 GSM because we like the extra thickness.

edit: Shenzhen is who we're printing with, in the likelihood that we're funded, and we really liked their material and service.

(also, fun username reference, Rose)
 

Zipgun

Thanks for the replies. It seems odd that TGC uses such a thin card, 269 gsm. Thiner than playing card standard.
 

gregory

Well - all my TGC decks seem fine...
 

Rose Lalonde

I don't have a deck by TGC, so I couldn't say. Plus people have different opinions, which makes it more complicated; I think Llewellyn's is too thin, but someone recently said it's their absolute favorite.

spiralingcadaver, I'm sure you'll be funded; it's a beautiful deck! (And hey, someone knows my username reference! :thumbsup: I was going to put 'TentacleTherapist' instead of 'Villager' beneath it, but I figured most people would think I was nuts.)
 

AJ

The overall size often has more to do with cardstock usability than weight of the paper.
The smaller the deck the more bricklike (running press for instance), the larger the card the more often we see complaints about whippy (druidcraft decks) even though the stock is quite similar.
So perhaps you should decide of size and from that, heavier or lighter?
 

spiralingcadaver

Thanks, Rose, and yeah, my sister-in-law introduced Homestuck to me a bit back (also, I agree on the title reservations).

AJ, certainly agree on size being the first defining factor: the smaller something is, the proportionally heavier the paper stock will feel, so stock should always come after size.
 

wooden-eye

Bonefire is printed on 350 gram card stock, they are also matte laminated. 79 cards make a 1 3/8 inch high stack (pretty chunky). The deck is also quite small and squarer than regular tarot dimensions 100mmx 70mm.
I love this card stock, perfect for Bonefire, but think it would be too thick for poker size decks.
I would say, if you can, definitely invest a bit more in stock, you will be way happier with your choice. Rather a couple of people dislike your stock than the majority feeling disappointed by a flimsy deck which does your artwork no favours.
I used Minuteman printers, they are not card specialists, but they were awesome from start to finish, not so pricey and I am using them again.