Original RWS Pocket DECK?

I was wondering who in AT would buy the U.S. Games "original" RWS deck (you know the one available on Amazon) with the blue flower backs, IF IT WERE AVAILABLE IN A POCKET DECK?

The reason I would love posts from those who WOULD definitely consider buying it if it were available, is that I am hoping to show US Games there would be a market for it.

I just REALLY don't care for the blue plaid backed pocket RWS deck and would love to see the "original" in a pocket form.

Anyone else?

THANKS for any replies.

GD

Hi GD! i for one would love to see the "original RWS with the flower backs" in a pocket edition. i detest those plaid backs on the pocket; and that is the main reason i haven't gotten one.!

Hugs and Blessings,
MGxxx

I love my pocket RWS. I've had it since i was 16 and wouldn't part with it - plaid backs and all. Dunno why you all have such a problem with it. *shrugs*

That said, I'd love a Pocket Original. I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

Hope you are able to fuel the fires to get this under consideration.

Thanks for your feedback, MoonG and Emmsma!

Wish I could tell you why I don't care for plaid, but just not a big plaid person, Emmsma! Well, at least when it comes to deck backs and I can't say I really own anything plaid. Just a preference. Besides I would like a smaller version of the "original" RWS by US Games. It's easier for me to shuffle with a pocket deck.

Ah, MoonGypsy, a kindred soul when it comes to blue plaid backed decks lol.
I am hoping if enough ATers would seriously consider a pocket version of the "original" with those backs, US Games will consider doing one! I know it's about the numbers and if there is enough interest.....

Thanks to you both and blessings,
GD

Yeah, I'd consider it. I, too, hate the plaid backs. I do enjoy plaid on some things, but that one isn't very pleasant, and to my eye doesn't suit the deck at all.

I think my favorite RWS back so far is the one on the Pamela Colman Smith Commemorative.

Greatdane, I'm with you on this one, plaid really isn't my thing.

I do love me some plaid (and some argyle!) so the backs themselves don't bother me to look at. What I've never quite understood though is what relation that pattern has to do with the deck itself - it doesn't seem to have much of a connection in color, symbol, etc. to the images on the cards so it seems a little random. What am I missing?

I'm sure you know I'd buy a pocket "Original" RWS in a heartbeat. It's not the PCS, but it's still a really nice change from the standard deck.

-kalliope

Oink said:

...What I've never quite understood though is what relation that pattern has to do with the deck itself - it doesn't seem to have much of a connection in color, symbol, etc. to the images on the cards so it seems a little random. What am I missing?

Click to expand...

Exactly!!!

A deck back should have two things going for it. It ought to be nice to look at because we look at the backs a lot. And it should relate to the deck imagery in some way. It drives me stark raving nuts when a back is just slapped on with nothing to do with the deck underneath it. In addition to the original RWS plaid, I have the same issue with the Morgan Greer stars and the Aquarian swirls. Decks that did a good job include Cat Black's Golden and Touchstone decks, the Kissa, Shadowscapes, Fenestra ... I could go on. It's really not that hard to come up with a good card back. There's no excuse to lazily plop on just any old thing.

I'm not sure I would want one to be honest.

I like the Original RWS but as the blotchiest RWS out there, I dread to think what a shrunken version would look like. Imagine that King of Pents shrunken to an ink blot? There is so much blotchiness int his deck that I don't think it lends itself to a mini version, much as I like it.

The PCS Commemorative deck is much sharper and would look much better.