UnitedCardists.com - The forum for Cardistry, Magic, Custom Decks and All Things Playing Cards.

KT52 wrote:On a different subject, I took a look at the silk deck and then at the Arabesque deck last night. I still think that the Arabesque deck is the greatest deck ever produced so far.

I recently sat down and compared my Silver Arabesque Collector's with the Silver Player's and Red Player's. I had a new appreciation for the collector's foiled version after seeing it side by side with "plainer" versions—it really is stunning. Also, I found the silver iteration of the player's more appealing across the board than the gold in the red version.

Merlebird wrote:

KT52 wrote:On a different subject, I took a look at the silk deck and then at the Arabesque deck last night. I still think that the Arabesque deck is the greatest deck ever produced so far.

It's a difficult choice for me. Arabesque has the more vibrant design by far - Silk is deliberately "simpler" - and I like the play of colors and patterns. But Arabesque - at least, my copy - also suffers from some technical issues (smudges, scuffs, flaking, etc.) that Silk just... doesn't. It's by far a smoother technical execution.

I think it's a little like figure skating: are you more impressed by a skater who attempts a lot of complicated jumps and stumbles in landing a couple, or by one who nails every mark in a slightly "safer" routine? Different people will feel differently on that, and I'm not sure I know where I fall on the question myself.

I'm sorry to hear that your copy had some technical issues. I didn't notice much on mine which is perhaps why I favor the Arabesque deck more. But yes, silk would be number two in my opinion. As a matter of fact, I noticed the technical issues on the Damask deck which is why I'm not as crazy about that one.

Got 3 Gambler's deliveries yesterday and no Arabesque. I really wish Gambler's would some how indicate the deck in the their shipping notices.

PrincessTrouble wrote:Got 3 Gambler's deliveries yesterday and no Arabesque. I really wish Gambler's would some how indicate the deck in the their shipping notices.

I agree PT... Still no word on my brick of Arabesque... It is always a guessing game

Drum drum drum...beat beat beat...Drum drum drum...
Oooh ya ya ya...
Drum drum drum...beat beat beat...Drum drum drum...

"where are my decks too?"

Drum drum drum...beat beat beat...Drum drum drum...
Oooh ya ya ya...
Drum drum drum...beat beat beat...Drum drum drum...

The natives are restless

Turns out my notice from Gamblers was for the Peacock decks and the Black Magic decks.

So, now I sit with no notification from Gamblers on the Arabesque decks. Hopefully it will be soon. Looking forward to those decks.

I had no email from Gambler's for either my DeNovo's or my Arabesque—they just showed up. Not sure what's up with their notifications these days.

Also waiting on decks and Uncuts.

No GW Notifications as yet

Prays to the Greek God of Art ... Hephaestus aka Lotrek that they are coming soon

badpete69 wrote:Prays to the Greek God of Art ... Hephaestus aka Lotrek that they are coming soon

The answer to your prayers: GW told me that the bricks (which are the last shipment) should go out on Monday.

Well, that is me. Brick x2.

Waiting semi patiently for any sign that my deck finally shipped.

Bradius wrote:Well, that is me. Brick x2.

And me with my mixed brick.

Magic Tapp wrote:

Bradius wrote:Well, that is me. Brick x2.

And me with my mixed brick.

Ditto.

Got my decks on Saturday. Very pleased with the cards. However, the foil on the tucks is very fragile and scratches/flakes way too easily.

Meanwhile I'm still waiting for my silks

Players Edition (red and blue) arrived today. Got Silver about a month ago. They look great!

I’ll send a message to Lotrek but was wondering if anyone knows who signed my red edition? Take a look, as compared to the blue edition. Does anyone else have a red like this?

Magistrate1500 wrote:I’ll send a message to Lotrek but was wondering if anyone knows who signed my red edition? Take a look, as compared to the blue edition. Does anyone else have a red like this?

Lotrek got that carpal tunnel from signing all these and had to farm some out to TaskRabbit

Per Lotrek it is a notation for double backer, written by him.

Double Backer?

That’s what he said. He said that there is a double backer in the KS players edition decks. I didn’t ask why he decided to make a written notation on the tuck. I figured I’d just let that one go. Or why the blue edition doesn’t have a double backer.

I have 2 of the Blue Decks that have D Backer printed on the bottom. But I have 2 Red Decks that has nothing printed on the bottom. So what's up?

I got my decks in and the odd thing is my blue decks have "D. backer" signed on the bottom instead of my red decks. And as indicated, my blue decks are the only ones with a double backer gaff card while my red decks have no gaff cards. I wonder how many of each color he marked as double backed, and why they weren't sent out matched? So far it sounds like people either got red double backed decks, or blue ones, but not both colors with double back gaffs or neither color with gaffs.

I love the looks of these cards, the Arabesque design is one of my favorite all time designs. The metallic inks actually look pretty metallic, almost up to USPCC metallic ink standards. The only disappointment is the finish of the deck. Doesn't fan great and a bit clumpy, and somehow the finish is a fingerprint magnet. Definitely not a deck for cardsitry, but I'm definitely going to look forward to using these for poker nights.

sinjin7 wrote:Definitely not a deck for cardsitry, ...

I love the fact that there're people considering to use Lotrek decks for cardistry. I'll have to get a hold on Noel or Oliver and ask them if they would do a little cardistry edit with some Oath Silk . Would be a blast to see a deck like this in the most skilled hands out there. Until then I have to rewatch the handling part of The Genmtleman Wake's Oath Damask review. I love that he doesn't dares to use them for springs and stuff.

sinjin7 wrote:I got my decks in and the odd thing is my blue decks have "D. backer" signed on the bottom instead of my red decks. And as indicated, my blue decks are the only ones with a double backer gaff card while my red decks have no gaff cards. I wonder how many of each color he marked as double backed, and why they weren't sent out matched? So far it sounds like people either got red double backed decks, or blue ones, but not both colors with double back gaffs or neither color with gaffs.

I love the looks of these cards, the Arabesque design is one of my favorite all time designs. The metallic inks actually look pretty metallic, almost up to USPCC metallic ink standards. The only disappointment is the finish of the deck. Doesn't fan great and a bit clumpy, and somehow the finish is a fingerprint magnet. Definitely not a deck for cardsitry, but I'm definitely going to look forward to using these for poker nights.

I agree about the finish of the deck and noticed the "fingerprint magnet" aspect too. I care about that less with a deck from him because they look amazing and I'm not using them for magic or anything on a daily basis.

Magistrate1500 wrote:

sinjin7 wrote:The metallic inks actually look pretty metallic, almost up to USPCC metallic ink standards. The only disappointment is the finish of the deck. Doesn't fan great and a bit clumpy, and somehow the finish is a fingerprint magnet. Definitely not a deck for cardsitry, but I'm definitely going to look forward to using these for poker nights.

I agree about the finish of the deck and noticed the "fingerprint magnet" aspect too. I care about that less with a deck from him because they look amazing and I'm not using them for magic or anything on a daily basis.

Yeah, what's up with the fingerprinting? I noticed that too. Is it that the finish is too smooth to hide them?

I definitely think the silver metallics are there. The gold metallics have noticeably less flash, but I'm not sure if this is by design.

Can someone give me more specifics on what the problem is with the handling of the players decks? Any ideas on what is wrong? I say this because these were made by Lotrek without foil to improve handling of these cards in his effort at perfection.

These cards really were an amazingly affordable deck from Lotrek. It was an easy campaign to brick up on. The tucks look amazing.

There's nothing wrong with the handling of the Arabesque deck per se, it's just not as smooth and consistent as the USPCC, Carta Mundi, or even EPCC/LPCC at this point. If you want specifics, here they are:

If you have two flat objects with rough, uneven surfaces, they will not slide against each other well, or at all. If you have two flat objects with surfaces that are completely smooth, they will tend to stick to each other and also not slide against each other well. If you break up the surfaces of two flat objects with a fine, even pattern, and coat them with a slick chemical (like a teflon based lacquer or varnish), then you will have two flat object sliding against each other exceedingly well. That is purpose of the finish of a deck of cards.

These decks handle well enough to play poker adequately. But if you're a magician or a cardist with much higher standards of performance for card manipulation, then you want the highest degree of slip with the highest consistency and evenness. Just crack open a deck of Bicycle Rider Backs and do a one handed thumb fan and you can see and feel how effortless it is to produce the fan, and depending on your skill level, the cards should be very evenly spaced apart within the fan. Now take an Arabesque deck and try do the same fan and you will feel a certain amount of friction, definitely not as smooth as the Rider Back, and the cards will be slightly clumpy instead of evenly spaced.

I praise Lotrek for the quest for perfection, but the journey continues. He still needs to tinker with the dimpling pattern (particularly the depth of the dimples) and the chemical composition of his finish to achieve perfection like the USPCC did with their Air Cushion finish. This is a beautifully designed deck and the tuck looks great, but I will echo Princess Trouble and caution you to handle with care, the golf foil is very fragile for some reason. I'm already seeing small chips of foil flaking off and I haven't even touched the tuck that much.

Bradius wrote:Can someone give me more specifics on what the problem is with the handling of the players decks? Any ideas on what is wrong? I say this because these were made by Lotrek without foil to improve handling of these cards in his effort at perfection.

These cards really were an amazingly affordable deck from Lotrek. It was an easy campaign to brick up on. The tucks look amazing.

I don't have the technical expertise that sinjin has but if you take one of the cards in your right hand with your thumb and finger on the bottom right corner and tap it lightly on the deck in your left hand there is an odd, magnetic property to them. The card will stick to the deck, probably causing the problem with fans/spreads etc.

I also have the problem with the foil on the tuck box. Some of the foil came off when I removed the cello wrap.

Its still a beautiful deck and I don't regret backing it at. I pretty much have everything he does on "auto-purchase." The Silver Players tuck is amazing! Its just problems I haven't seen before.