Thin Cards?

[LadyDeborah]

Is anyone else noticing that so many cards lately are getting thinner and thinner? I have ordered several decks in the past few months and the card stock seems to be so thin, it's almost like heavier paper. I hope deck creators will take note and not compromise on their cards. I know some people even seem to prefer a little thinner card for shuffling purposes and I understand that, but I don't want them to be too thin. They are "cards" after all. How does everyone else feel about this?

 

[nisaba]

<nods>

On the other hand, and just playing Card 15's Advocate here, cardstock *can* get too thick. Not a problem for most purposes, but if you are like me and have small hands or short fingers, the extra thickness makes decks with a wide format really difficult to hold and thumb through.

 

[Inconnu]

I'm not buying new packs lately. But I like the flexibility of thin cards if they are coated enough to protect them. Good flex on the riffle.

I really prefer heavier uncoated cards like most il Meneghello packs. These I shuffle hand over hand.

 

[Wooden Nickel]

Could you give an example of decks you think are too thin (or thinner than of old)?

I haven't noticed a trend of cardstock getting thinner recently. When I compare my decks stack for stack, some make for shorter piles than others. For instance, my Lo Scarabeo decks are all thinner than the 2006 Sheridan-Douglas or my Mary-El. But I see the difference as a matter of publisher rather than date of publication.

 

[KristinCali]

So far the worst I have is the Golden Botticelli. SUCH a shame because this is a stunning deck. For me it is purely decorational because it's so thin! I'm going to frame the majors actually

 

[karen0205]

I think the thinnest card stock I ever saw was on the Boltcutter decks.
That deck felt like someone had run it through a copier with plain copy paper.

Some of the card stock that appears thin is really reinforced so it doesn't have
to feel thick. The Victorian Romantic reprint in Russian was printed on a thinner
size card stock but it actually had a carbon layer inside for added strength.
I have one that I have abused a bit and it still looks and feels great.
The thin card stock might be really better quality paper so I am not sure you
can use how thin the cards feel as an indicator of quality. It does take a bit
of getting used to if you have been handling decks with thick card stock.

 

[Miss Divine]

The Llewellyn and more recent Lo Scarabeo is a bit too thin for my tastes. I use my decks, I don't collect 'em as art pieces, and so I always eventually need back-ups which is kinda annoying.

 

[inhalexhale]

The Llewellyn and more recent Lo Scarabeo is a bit too thin for my tastes. I use my decks, I don't collect 'em as art pieces, and so I always eventually need back-ups which is kinda annoying.

Beat me to it! Llewellyn decks are quite thin, which has its pros and cons. Easier to shuffle and manage in general, but they are also way quicker to age and fall apart than other decks. They also don't survive accidental injuries all that well.

And I agree with Nisaba though in that card stock can definitely get too thick. I just got the Zombie Tarot as an early self-birthday present (I'm loving it more than I thought I would btw) and between its matte finish and its thicker-than-I'm-used-to card stock, shuffling is a bit tricky!

 

[herself]

The only one that I can think of that felt too thin was the Fantastic Menagerie. I remember actually feeling disappointed the first time I opened the box and looked at them. But like some others have said, a bit of flex is good in my book. I like to riffle shuffle

 

[LadyDeborah]

Could you give an example of decks you think are too thin (or thinner than of old)?

I haven't noticed a trend of cardstock getting thinner recently. When I compare my decks stack for stack, some make for shorter piles than others. For instance, my Lo Scarabeo decks are all thinner than the 2006 Sheridan-Douglas or my Mary-El. But I see the difference as a matter of publisher rather than date of publication.

The one that, to me, would be a perfect example is "Oracle of the Shapeshifters." These were released in 2013. I know they are not Tarot Cards, but they still give an idea of what I mean by thin cardstock. I am not against thinner cards. I don't mind if they are a little on the thin side. In fact, I agree that they are often times easier to handle, shuffle, and use. But when you are afraid you might bend them with normal use, it's not good. I might add that this Oracle Deck has beautiful artwork and is otherwise beautiful, even if it's not your thing. I only feel if I went to so much effort to publish my work, I wouldn't cut corners on the cardstock. The other cards I have by Lucy Cavendish and Jasmine Becket-Griffith are not near this thin.