SphinYote
I recently bought a new copy of the Spiral tarot so that I could use the old one for collage.
I didn't save the packaging for my old one, but have the LWB and its a first printing.
The new copy was a 7th printing.
1. Lamination: Crappy, you guys are absolutely right on this issue, when I compare two of the same deck, the difference is striking. Lamination issues don't bother me a whole lot because I tend to collect more than use, but having directly compared the two, yuck.
2. Sturdiness: one shuffle for the new edition and it dinged the edges. Could just be coincidence, but didn't like that.
3. There is a slight color shift, more noticeable on some cards than others. I can tell they increased the contrast between the the first edition and this one, and in a few cases it made the images better, but for the most part not. This is coupled with the fact that there is a slight shift from a warmer to a cooler tone, a slight warm reddish tinge that has been taken out, so that the blues and greens are more visible. Again, more noticeable on some cards than others, and on a couple an improvement, but for the most part the deck feels cold and uninviting. The shininess of the lamination also adds to this icy cold quality. (in working with Photoshop, I'm going to guess that some fool used the Autocolor command thoughtlessly, and without considering that it sometimes makes things worse instead of better--what has happened to the deck color and contrast wise looks exactly like a misapplication of the autocolor command)
4. Its not that noticeable, but there is a slight shift for the worst in resolution. If I take off my glasses and look at two cards up close, I can see the dots from the printing in both of them, and the newer edition is slightly lower resolution.
5. on a couple of cards, the printing is just slightly misaligned. I probably wouldn't notice it had I not had the earlier edition to compare to, but it generates a very slight fuzziness that wasn't there in the earlier edition.
6. Oddly, they made the red border around each image just a teensy bit narrower. This is not a criticism, just an observation..doesn't change the image quality one way or the other, I just wonder why?
7. The first printing according to the LWB was printed in the U.S. The second was produced in Italy. While I know it's cheaper to outsource, it's less environmentally friendly, and come on, if you're going to do it, get a decent printer. Lo Scarabeo has a decent producer for their decks (though the resolution does tend to be slightly lower, the lamination and cardstock is good), why is it so hard for U.S. Games?
Conclusion: First printing goes in new box for 7th printing.
7th printing gets to encounter sharp pointy scissors and glue.
Second conclusion: I agree with everyone else: U.S. Games needs to go back to their old printing and lamination processes.
Yote
I didn't save the packaging for my old one, but have the LWB and its a first printing.
The new copy was a 7th printing.
1. Lamination: Crappy, you guys are absolutely right on this issue, when I compare two of the same deck, the difference is striking. Lamination issues don't bother me a whole lot because I tend to collect more than use, but having directly compared the two, yuck.
2. Sturdiness: one shuffle for the new edition and it dinged the edges. Could just be coincidence, but didn't like that.
3. There is a slight color shift, more noticeable on some cards than others. I can tell they increased the contrast between the the first edition and this one, and in a few cases it made the images better, but for the most part not. This is coupled with the fact that there is a slight shift from a warmer to a cooler tone, a slight warm reddish tinge that has been taken out, so that the blues and greens are more visible. Again, more noticeable on some cards than others, and on a couple an improvement, but for the most part the deck feels cold and uninviting. The shininess of the lamination also adds to this icy cold quality. (in working with Photoshop, I'm going to guess that some fool used the Autocolor command thoughtlessly, and without considering that it sometimes makes things worse instead of better--what has happened to the deck color and contrast wise looks exactly like a misapplication of the autocolor command)
4. Its not that noticeable, but there is a slight shift for the worst in resolution. If I take off my glasses and look at two cards up close, I can see the dots from the printing in both of them, and the newer edition is slightly lower resolution.
5. on a couple of cards, the printing is just slightly misaligned. I probably wouldn't notice it had I not had the earlier edition to compare to, but it generates a very slight fuzziness that wasn't there in the earlier edition.
6. Oddly, they made the red border around each image just a teensy bit narrower. This is not a criticism, just an observation..doesn't change the image quality one way or the other, I just wonder why?
7. The first printing according to the LWB was printed in the U.S. The second was produced in Italy. While I know it's cheaper to outsource, it's less environmentally friendly, and come on, if you're going to do it, get a decent printer. Lo Scarabeo has a decent producer for their decks (though the resolution does tend to be slightly lower, the lamination and cardstock is good), why is it so hard for U.S. Games?
Conclusion: First printing goes in new box for 7th printing.
7th printing gets to encounter sharp pointy scissors and glue.
Second conclusion: I agree with everyone else: U.S. Games needs to go back to their old printing and lamination processes.
Yote
But I know they are not the same. And to think that I had found 'the deck' of my life. Now I only have one copy of 'the deck of my life' that I care to read with.