Fed up with box sets using different cardstock

[earthair]

Got my kit version of Apokalypsis today from the US (yay) and while I'm very happy to have the book at last, I just wish LoS would give us the option of buying the stand alone deck with the book. I don't like the kit version of the deck- the cardstock isn't as shuffle-able as the black bordered version. Ditto Egyptian Tarot and Book of Shadows.

Publishers- please just pop the normal deck, in it's tuck box into the kit version.

 

[gregory]

I've not got my Apok kit yet - but I can't see any difference in stock in the case of BoS. (Don't have an Egyptian kit. I wonder WHY I don't...)

And I rather like not having to open the tuckbox.

 

[Barleywine]

I had the same problem with the Illuminati kit: the card stock was way too thick and stiff for me. I understand the mass-market deck was much more manageable.

 

[FLizarraga]

Curiously enough, I find myself in the opposite camp. I love the thicker cardstock of the Illuminati kit deck, and the colors pop and sizzle. I don't necessarily hate the feel of the standalone Illuminati (it is Lo Scarabeo's business-as-usual cardstock, after all) but the colors look sort of washed out, at least in my deck. They have no pizzazz.

Based on the posts here, I'm assuming they did the same thing with the Apokalypsis.

It goes to show that it's hard to please everybody.

 

[Barleywine]

Curiously enough, I find myself in the opposite camp. I love the thicker cardstock of the Illuminati kit deck, and the colors pop and sizzle. I don't necessarily hate the feel of the standalone Illuminati (it is Lo Scarabeo's business-as-usual cardstock, after all) but the colors look sort of washed out, at least in my deck. They have no pizzazz.

Based on the posts here, I'm assuming they did the same thing with the Apokalypsis.

It goes to show that it's hard to please everybody.

True enough. The dazzling artwork on the Illuminati kit version is wonderful to look at, but trying to handle the deck for reading purposes left me frustrated. If I wanted to read with it (not my first choice for a reading deck), I would just buy the standard version.

 

[Achlys]

Curiously enough, I find myself in the opposite camp. I love the thicker cardstock of the Illuminati kit deck, and the colors pop and sizzle. I don't necessarily hate the feel of the standalone Illuminati (it is Lo Scarabeo's business-as-usual cardstock, after all) but the colors look sort of washed out, at least in my deck. They have no pizzazz.

Based on the posts here, I'm assuming they did the same thing with the Apokalypsis.

It goes to show that it's hard to please everybody.

Agreed with you about the thicker cardstock. I bought the kit of the Apokalypsis and haven't had issues shuffling it.

 

[gregory]

The Illuminati was a special case - the kit edition was gilded and had extra large cards. I haven't a kit of the Apokalypsis yet, so cannot comment on that. But I DO recall Ric saying (when people started claiming that the LoS decks from Llewellyn were on inferior stock to those bought within Europe) that ALL decks of any one type were printed at the same time in the same place, and that it would be insane to do otherwise.

Are the cards in the kit larger, as they were with the Illuminati ? I am certain sure that this does not apply to Book of Shadows, though.

 

[Spiffo]

Deleted

 

[FLizarraga]

True enough. The dazzling artwork on the Illuminati kit version is wonderful to look at, but trying to handle the deck for reading purposes left me frustrated. If I wanted to read with it (not my first choice for a reading deck), I would just buy the standard version.

It's a very personal thing. Many generations of farmers and probably some Neanderthal blood have "gifted" me with humongous hands and thick, sausagey fingers. To add insult to injury, I'm not particularly handy. Large cards and thick, extra-strong cardstock allow for easier manipulation with these clumsy appendages. You should see me trying to shuffle a mini deck --like the Frankenstein creature trying to crochet.

 

[gregory]

I can only speak about the Impressionist Tarot and the kit card stock was definitely thicker and (IMO) of better quality than the non-kit cards. I also have an older and more recent version of Nefertari's Tarots and the earlier edition (with black backs) is much better quality than the more recent (double eye of Horus back). The recent edition is thinner and the edges are already fraying. As to the Book of Shadows (kit), I find the card stock thin and very unimpressive. Glad I didn't pay what the poor old Kickstarter backers paid for it.

KICKSTARTER for Book of Shadows ? Since when ?

The issue raised was the difference between cards in kits and cards on their own. IN the case of the Impressionist - I do concede that the kit cards are a little thicker - but honestly, IMHO, not enough to get excited about - the deck only ones seem perfectly fine to me, and I would never have noticed if this thread hadn't made me get them out.

Now, that the standard is slipping - I would agree up to a point - especially in the case of Llewellyn, whose card stock really is thin and not that durable. LoS stock may or not be thinner than it used to be - but I haven't had any issues with durability. None of mine - old or new - is fraying at all. USGames I haven't really thought about; it's so long since there was a new deck to think about - except the "in-a-tin" ones, which are small enough that it makes no real difference ! - and I don't tend to buy new prints of decks I already own. The Omegaland one was fine.

Meanwhile playing card stock (Bicycle and USPC) is fantastic; strong, linen finish, lovely to work with. Why Tarot card publishers are using inferior stock is anyone's guess but the cynic in me has some ideas.

Can't actually think of any myself except that tarot cards DO have a rather smaller market for each new one brought out, where playing cards go on for ever.