I have no say in the choices of card stock or which printer is used, so I'm not defending or excusing. All I can say in terms of providing some kind of of response to the issue of card quality is the following.
First of all there are very few printers that even do the the gold edging and those that do, are all in China (as far as i'm aware) and even then its a delicate process that not all do well. When I was self publishing my special edition Tarot Royal, I received an initial sample, and it looked wonderful, like a golden brick. Unfortunately thats exactly what it was, the golden edging had congealed into one mass, the individual cards couldn't be separated. So I had to reject and start again.
The choice of paper being perceived as sub standard is a difficult criteria to judge. Its not just the thickness, or weight or calibre or even cost that defines any reference standard. The flexibility, or rigidity can be further influenced by % of cotton, the fibre, the direction of fibre content of the cards stock, and then even more by any additional coating of laminate, or liquid UV varnish.....
While I cannot quote you the exact specifications, I do know that US Games did not scrimp on the production costs, they paid for the best material. I was privy to this decision even if wasn't part of making it. But I repeat there isn't much choice anyway. Its a very select number of suppliers who can do it and the stock they can do it on.
When you consider that a deck released by a major publisher is printed in the thousands, the possibility of the 36 cards of one particular deck being different to and of a lower quality than say the other 9999 that may have produced of that particular edition, clearly that cannot be the case..... an odd card here or there possibly....but the entire deck?????
So while I respect anyones personal appraisal, I have to conclude it is just that "personal", it may be shared by some others also, but not the vast majority. From what I have read and heard from the reviews, the quality of the deck in the physical sense (rather than the subjective art sense) was minimal. On the contrary it was considered to have been produced well.
How people shuffle is also a factor than cannot be addressed in its entirety. The shuffling style, or how vigorous the process may indeed cause cards to be damaged over a shorter (relative shorter period). But to provide a deck that was strong enough to handle such usage would result in a deck that most certainly other people would find uncomfortable in other ways....i.e. too thick....to rigid... this I know to be the case, because when I have self published I have attempted over the years numerous variations in terms of card size, thickness, flexibility, additional coating, liquid varnish, gloss matte finish, all based on feedback , all in an attempt to provide that magic sweet spot that would provide customers with what they want...... Conclusion. there is no sweet spot.
I cannot imaging the speed style or frequency of shuffling that might actually cause blisters...but I take your word that for some individuals that may be the outcome. But in conclusion, as I say while in self publishing one at least has choices, the runs are smaller, I (or whoever the individual producer is) can discuss options and make personal decisions along with the effect on overall production costs. But with major printers who handle the larger runs, or those who use tarot card template based printing services, I think you may have just a couple of options to choose from....
So in a nutshell personally I don't think this deck is "sub" standard, i think its actually better than "standard". Yes I'm sure people will come back with any number of decks that they consider superior quality, to counteract my point. But to be fair at least compare gilded edged decks. Even so they may be right, (by their own considerations), of what they prefer or consider a deck should "feel" like, but as with everything else in tarot, that preference is personal and not shared by all. You indicated that you would be willing to buy an additional copy of this deck were it to be reproduced with better quality, so clearly the issue isn't with the imagery. I hope that allows you consider my points in a neutral way, i.e. not defending something on a personal level, but rather my explaining some basic facts of the tarot production world.... You may simply be expecting something more than is possible or practical to produce, especially when from the vast majority of customers the publisher has received an overwhelmingly positive response. This topic is very relevant to my current situation where this very week I'm reviewing just this issue for a new edition of my Tarot Royale. What card stock, how thick, how rigid, how to prolong its life span,varnish? laminate?a myriad of questions, costs and decisions. All made with the best of intentions and geared to some idealized average readers preferences. I can assure you, that I have never made a choice for any part of the proces based on its being a cheaper option, on the contrary. But even so I can also assure you, whatever the results, there will be some who will not be happy. In my case, I have the means to provide a sample card to any potential customer that really is concerned about such nuances, so they can have a physical sample to touch and feel before placing an order for the deck itself. (in some cases though, by the time they decided to order, the deck had sold out) But either way such a policy isn't practical for a deck released in the thousands by a major publisher.
To address your last question of why people keep ordering a deck when they read in an review that the card stock from any given deck was poor. I think I'v provided a possible answer for that in this post. For what its worth, certainly each and every deck I've read a review of will include one or more that is unhappy about the cards stock but, it has to be seen in the overall context of feed back. If there really is an issue that will be reflected by the sheer volume. For most people I dont think its high on their list of deal breakers.
