Hey! Deck publishers!

greatdane

What should we poll first? :)

I think a few carefully selected polls on issues that seem to come up more than others that should not be that difficult for a publisher or publishing company to address would be dandy. So, ATers chime in and let's pick one to start!
 

Debra

yes, let's decide on what to communally gripe about.

Wait. Would this mean less griping overall?

Well that's no fun.

;) happy new year, all.
 

Grizabella

Well, I'm usually reasonably easy to please as long as decks are a nice smaller size and easy to shuffle. If they're overly large and thick as floor tiles, forget it. That's just totally not useful to me at all.

I don't like keywords on them---just suit and court and number is okay, though.

But I don't pay any attention to the multi-language thing or the copyright marks, etc. To me, that would be like saying I couldn't use a wrench because it had a handle I didn't like the color of or that I wouldn't wear a necklace because it had .925 stamped on the back. I just don't care about those things. Copyright marks are necessary and English isn't the only language Tarot users speak, so I'm easy to get along with.

I love the glossy version of the Morgan Greer and traded my more matte version for a newer slick one. For me, glossy is fine---in some cases I've even liked it better.

I like thinner card stock so I use a first edition AnnaK and a first edition Pearls of Wisdom for those reasons and also because the first edition Pearls of Wisdom is a little smaller than the second edition.

Organza bags are useless. They're kind of almost an insult to the Tarot buying public, really. As a very temporary home for a deck, that's one thing, but if you want to use it for more than three days, you're out of luck. If a publisher isn't going to put in a serviceable bag, then don't put in anything, I say.

Put up some polls and I'll join in where I have concerns. I'm game.
 

gregory

This is true. I used to think that many of Lo Scarabeo's deck seemed like corporate productions, as if a committee of people had come up with the idea and then gone out and found an artist to illustrate it and that this made some of their decks less heartfelt and interesting. Now I appreciate this aspect much more because this is how ambitious and interesting projects like The Mona Lisa Tarot or Tarot of Ascension or As Above So Below get produced. The Tarot of Heroes (Schiffer) could have been a wonderful deck if someone sympathetic to the artists vision had worked alongside him to make sure it communicated the ideas well.
I agree about LoS - but I am with Annabelle on Schiffer. Especially on the huge flat boxes out of which things FALL.

And Heroes - the art quality itself was the killer for that one. I think Schiffer were remiss in publishing it at all. He'd put out the Shadowfox already... why put out another, why oh why....
 

Le Fanu

If I had to choose one thing... just one... I (erm) don't think I could.

Maybe excessive white borders. Yes, I´d go for that if there was a poll. Big white borders. Really don´t need them but it´s probably the kind of thing than non-AT members would think a bit odd and probably don´t even notice.

I would have said good quality cardstock but that is so subjective it´s not even worth barking up that tree.

I also wish that LoS would change their format sometimes. Bigger cards, not always the standard ones. I just wish there were editions of the Liber T in the same size as the Waite/de Angelis Professional edition, but I think they´re putting out the Medieval in a bigger size plus the Illuminati so it looks like that might be changing.
 

greatdane

Well, to start on an easy one...HUGE borders

It would be hard to pick just one thing, but we could do a few polls. That seems easiest. As long as there are enough ATers interested in a certain issue, why not poll it and direct publishers to it? If I had to pick one to just start, one that would be or should be an easy fix for publishers, it would be BIG borders (have nothing against borders, it's the big ones) that make a deck feel too large and the images are still small. If a deck is going to be a bit big for me, I want that because the images are bigger not that the borders take up a third or more of the card.
 

Chiriku

Maybe excessive white borders. Yes, I´d go for that if there was a poll. Big white borders. Really don´t need them but it´s probably the kind of thing than non-AT members would think a bit odd and probably don´t even notice.




It would be hard to pick just one thing, but we could do a few polls. That seems easiest. As long as there are enough ATers interested in a certain issue, why not poll it and direct publishers to it? If I had to pick one to just start, one that would be or should be an easy fix for publishers, it would be BIG borders (have nothing against borders, it's the big ones) that may a deck feel too large and the images are still small. If a deck is going to be a bit big for me, I want that because the images are bigger not that the borders take up a third or more of the card.

Well, I was waiting for someone to bring this one up and see if others agreed with me that LARGE borders are probably the most likely common ground issue. It appears some of you thought of it yourselves, which is promising for its common ground potential.

Leaving some border at all should satisfy those who like borders and consider them protective to the image or portal-like, while reducing their size will placate those of us who lament how small the images are in relation to wider-than-necessary borders. Just enough for a small title and for the fingertips to grab on...anyone disagree?

Unfortunately, the decks that need this most (such as Lo Scarabeo's) have little chance of being changed (see below).

I also wish that LoS would change their format sometimes. Bigger cards, not always the standard ones. I just wish there were editions of the Liber T in the same size as the Waite/de Angelis Professional edition, but I think they´re putting out the Medieval in a bigger size plus the Illuminati so it looks like that might be changing.

Small image size (whether due to border size or card size) is my number one pet peeve.

Lo Scarabeo decks would benefit the most from increased image size owing to a relatively higher degree of visual intricacy, at least as compared to the benchmark RWS. I have a trimmed Sweet Twilight and the removal of the multi-lingual border really highlights just how small these images really are. It's a crying shame.

But of course...we know that the multi-lingual borders are hard to budge. The company needs them to sell decks across Europe, it seems; so be it. I'd rather have tainted LS decks than none at all.

On the other hand, of late they have put out more decks without the multi-lingual borders, so even if our old favorites can't benefit from a facelift, fewer new decks will suffer in the future.

(For the record: I own and enjoy decks printed in a variety of languages and in fact prefer them to my English ones. I can't even read the Cyrillic alphabet and yet Russian decks are among my favorites. So this is not an issue of Anglophones pouting over exposure to multiple languages; it is an issue of image size and how it is necessarily reduced with a lot of border---and an issue of visual incongruence with utilitarian modern-looking type surrounding a piece of art in which we're supposed to lose ourselves).


And Heroes - the art quality itself was the killer for that one. I think Schiffer were remiss in publishing it at all. He'd put out the Shadowfox already... why put out another, why oh why....

I'm afraid I have to agree with you, all respect due to Annabelle's opinion and to Mr Shadowfox. I have no explanations, not even speculations, about how a team of people said "Yes" to this one. The best quality production in the world couldn't save it.
 

greatdane

All those in favor of doing the first poll on Borders....

Just as a start, how many say BIG borders (not borders, BIG ones that just seem to be to make the deck a little hard to shuffle and decrease the actual tarot image) would be a good poll to kick it off? Just a poll that asks ATers if they prefer borders or borders more than, what?, 1/3 inch? .85 centimeters? Too small? Too big? Please weigh in before a poll is set.
 

gregory

Lo Scarabeo decks would benefit the most from increased image size owing to a relatively higher degree of visual intricacy, at least as compared to the benchmark RWS. I have a trimmed Sweet Twilight and the removal of the multi-lingual border really highlights just how small these images really are. It's a crying shame.

But of course...we know that the multi-lingual borders are hard to budge. The company needs them to sell decks across Europe, it seems; so be it. I'd rather have tainted LS decks than none at all.

On the other hand, of late they have put out more decks without the multi-lingual borders, so even if our old favorites can't benefit from a facelift, fewer new decks will suffer in the future.
YES - and I think this IS the way they are going. As a result of listening here. And I am told (a thread here where I think the artist mentioned it) the Illuminati is going to be borderless...

I'm afraid I have to agree with you, all respect due to Annabelle's opinion and to Mr Shadowfox. I have no explanations, not even speculations, about how a team of people said "Yes" to this one. The best quality production in the world couldn't save it.
Annabelle and I once listed the Shadowfox as our most EVER regretted purchase !

Large borders - I can sign to that.
 

greatdane

Sounds like BORDERS is a good place to start

So....borderless or just not huge borders? Frankly, small borders don't bother me although I admit on some decks, I really like borderless. The Anna. K comes to mind as a good example of thin borders. I don't have the first one, but the second edition has such thin borders, it seems borderless to me. ATers? No, or thin borders, for our poll? I think polling on whether we prefer no borders, thin borders, or thick borders might be a start, but hey, I'm open to whatever anyone wants to poll on or how to word it.