Thin Cards?

[tarotbear]

But does the artist pick the cardstock? I would think that is all the publisher's choice, as is inks, lamination, etc.

 

[Padma]

The Daniloff is another guilty party of thin decks. Too bad, because it is otherwise such a glorious deck, and amazing to read with! It is expensive, so I don't see why they cut back on the cardstock...kind of feels like thick Bristol board, the kind you'd do homework projects on in high school. I am really hoping he comes out with a standard size deck (the cards are really long) and in good old heavy duty cardstock...Because I fear I might wear these out!

 

[geoxena]

I just received the Legend Arthurian deck from Llewelyn a few days ago and was really very surprised at how thin and glossy it is. I looked at it and thought, "this looks like something I could've punched out the back of a magazine." Up til then, I have been relying on my US Games RWS, which is very sturdy and has a matte finish. I prefer the thicker, non-glossy cards. This old deck has a 1971 copyright on it and I bought it in the early- or mid-80s, and it has withstood the test of time! I noticed last night that one of the cards (in my old deck) had a crease in one corner (like it had been bent and then straightened again), and that crease didn't do any harm to the card at all - it's not dangling or flopping, and never compromised its strength, shape, or shuffle-ability.

So, this is a rather timely thread for me - I was going to start one myself after seeing how thin the Legend deck is. I was wondering whether most tarot cards these days are just thin and slick like that, or if it is an exception. I had recently read a few discussions about card stock somewhere else here (maybe it was the Deck Creation forum?) and got a bit discouraged if quality has gone down so much in all the years since I bought tarot cards. I think they should be the same thickness and sturdiness as good quality regular playing cards.

 

[Padma]

Most are fine, I think, Geoxena - out of 30 odd decks I have bought over the last few years, the Daniloff is the only thin cardstock one I have. Hth!

 

[LadyDeborah]

I just received the Legend Arthurian deck from Llewelyn a few days ago and was really very surprised at how thin and glossy it is. I looked at it and thought, "this looks like something I could've punched out the back of a magazine." Up til then, I have been relying on my US Games RWS, which is very sturdy and has a matte finish. I prefer the thicker, non-glossy cards. This old deck has a 1971 copyright on it and I bought it in the early- or mid-80s, and it has withstood the test of time! I noticed last night that one of the cards (in my old deck) had a crease in one corner (like it had been bent and then straightened again), and that crease didn't do any harm to the card at all - it's not dangling or flopping, and never compromised its strength, shape, or shuffle-ability.

So, this is a rather timely thread for me - I was going to start one myself after seeing how thin the Legend deck is. I was wondering whether most tarot cards these days are just thin and slick like that, or if it is an exception. I had recently read a few discussions about card stock somewhere else here (maybe it was the Deck Creation forum?) and got a bit discouraged if quality has gone down so much in all the years since I bought tarot cards. I think they should be the same thickness and sturdiness as good quality regular playing cards.

I just hope it's not a trend and the publishers think we aren't noticing. I'm sure it is a cost factor, but we are buying "cards" after all, not heavier paper stock. By the way, I hope I don't come off as a whiner. I only wondered if others had been seeing this, too.

 

[Miss Divine]

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.

Oh, I know exactly what you mean about the American version of the Shapeshifters. I was so annoyed with them that I started a thread about it:


http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=195325

Unbelievable how they could've had the balls to even put these out. I said it before and I will say it again..The quality is garbage!

 

[LadyDeborah]

Oh, I know exactly what you mean about the American version of the Shapeshifters. I was so annoyed with them that I started a thread about it:


http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=195325

Unbelievable how they could've had the balls to even put these out. I said it before and I will say it again..The quality is garbage!

Miss Divine, isn't it a shame? I think the cards are outstanding on both the front and back as far as the printing itself. If it was my artwork and they sent me the proofs or showed me the finished product, I would have to object. I don't ask for super thick cards at all. I just ask for reasonable "body" so the cards won't be so flimsy. I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. Oh, and thank you for the link!

 

[Juliana]

Most of the independent decks I've purchased recently have great cardstock. They are often thick if anything (which I love). It is the Llewellyn decks (as someone mentioned earlier) that I've really noticed the thin cardstock with. It is to the point where I hesitate to buy any Llewellyn decks.

 

[Miss Divine]

Miss Divine, isn't it a shame? I think the cards are outstanding on both the front and back as far as the printing itself. If it was my artwork and they sent me the proofs or showed me the finished product, I would have to object. I don't ask for super thick cards at all. I just ask for reasonable "body" so the cards won't be so flimsy. I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. Oh, and thank you for the link!

Yes it is a shame. I don't know why they didn't choose the same cardstock that they used for the American version of Shadows and Light. I was very pleased with that!

 

[LadyDeborah]

Most of the independent decks I've purchased recently have great cardstock. They are often thick if anything (which I love). It is the Llewellyn decks (as someone mentioned earlier) that I've really noticed the thin cardstock with. It is to the point where I hesitate to buy any Llewellyn decks.

Juliana, We can hope that Llewellyn and others will see that many of us are noticing. I sure hate to pass up decks that I like and want because of quality issues.