i have a question . . .

[reckone1999]

i have a question . . .

while i realize that the buck twins employ a lot of cheap tricks "we've found more cards, but these are the last ones, oh wait there's more" "we'll never reprint the old S&M versions" "oh wait we reprinted the old S&M versions and are charging $14 a deck to do it. or they market stupid shit, like owl shirts and hand lotion, and munitions boxes with dog tags . . .

all of that bs aside and just speaking about the actual cards,

why did v4, v5, v6 catch so much flack for being a "cash grab" and that they're lazy for not employing a new design, but when it comes to something like split spades, or white lions it's okay for them to do recoloring? why no remarks about the laziness or that david blaine's on a cash grab?

remember when answering this question their above bullshit mentioned doesn't count, because i'm focusing strictly on the actual cards themselves and the reactions of everyone on here to the design.

i'm just wondering if really people think that white lions back design is superior, or even artifice (split spades are aboviously nice looking) but i just don't understand why people dissed the recoloring of the backs for the smoke and mirrors line so much, when we have the different color versions of artifice, split spades, white lions, etc all being released in the same manner (minus the twins & their bs).

did everyone hate the design so much?

or does their dislike of the twins and their business practices cloud their judgment on their stuff?

or does the dislike of people willing to throw their money at them so quickly also cloud ones judegment on their stuff?

ps out of the colored versions the green was the best, hated the blue denim, and v6 was just okay, but not GREAT

[Mirror]

I love all of the smoke&mirrors i have v3, v5 and v6 but i like all designs. i really don't know why people hate the designs i love them

[reckone1999]

i love the earlier designs as most people do, but i don't hate v5, v6.

i don't know if you flourish or do magic, or just collect mirror, but i'm finding that that definitely makes a difference in what makes people like the way a back design looks on a deck.

because magicians and flourishers have the cards in constant motion, simplistic designs tend to look good (imo), because complicated designs can often distract or look muttled, confusing or distract from what's being performed.

[alric]

I think Blaine got a little flack for the White Lions colorations, but as boring as that design is, at least there's the innovation of a secret marking system. With the Artifice decks, those are generally viewed as a beautiful design and we want more colored versions. As for the actual v.4-v.7, they are good quality, but the D&D logo in the middle of polka dots isn't good design, especially after Si Scott's first 3 versions. Every one of us could've come up with putting our initials in the middle of polka dots.

But I think the bottom line is all of the BS you mentoned from the Bucks, you CANNOT separate the Bucks from the BS because they're so full of it. Its precisely because of the excess hype and grotesque over-pricing that makes our displeasure with them grow. You can't trust a company that misleads and lies to you. And the worst thing is that D&D used to be great innovators, even legendary, so they accumulated a legion of fanboys, and a lot of these fanboy are so clueless and blinded they think any crap from the twins is gold and they'll blindly defend D&D to the death no matter what.

So yeah, just considering the cards alone, their only sin is boredom and not deserving of any venom. But when you add the bullshit cheap tricks and lies of the Bucks, they deserve all the criticism and then some.

*edit* I disagree with you when you say cardists prefer simple designs, we want bold designs that stand out despite the fact cards are in constant motion and look great in performance.

[reckone1999]

I think Blaine got a little flack for the White Lions colorations, but as boring as that design is, at least there's the innovation of a secret marking system. With the Artifice decks, those are generally viewed as a beautiful design and we want more colored versions. As for the actual v.4-v.7, they are good quality, but the D&D logo in the middle of polka dots isn't good design, especially after Si Scott's first 3 versions. Every one of us could've come up with putting our initials in the middle of polka dots.

But I think the bottom line is all of the BS you mentoned from the Bucks, you CANNOT separate the Bucks from the BS because they're so full of it. Its precisely because of the excess hype and grotesque over-pricing that makes our displeasure with them grow. You can't trust a company that misleads and lies to you. And the worst thing is that D&D used to be great innovators, even legendary, so they accumulated a legion of fanboys, and a lot of these fanboy are so clueless and blinded they think any crap from the twins is gold and they'll blindly defend D&D to the death no matter what.

So yeah, just considering the cards alone, their only sin is boredom and not deserving of any venom. But when you add the bullshit cheap tricks and lies of the Bucks, they deserve all the criticism and then some.

*edit* I disagree with you when you say cardists prefer simple designs, we want bold designs that stand out despite the fact cards are in constant motion and look great in performance.

dan and dave buck ARE innovators, and ARE legendary, their contributions to both magic and cardistry will always remain regardless of their character. which sucks btw

pandora and jackson 5 will always be among some of the most beautiful flourishes created.

you say it's impossible to seperate all of their shit, from anything else, but that isn't true.

an example can be made by bobby fischer former chess champion of the world. in the end of his life he was blaming everything on the jews, and was completely crazy, but even with his craziness, people could still appreciate the games for what they were when he played against borris spasky when they emerged to play again back in the 90's.

i'm not a fan of the artifice, i liked the jokers and the pips, but they look like a snowflake to me with lines through it, and i think red artifice's were easily one of the most overhyped decks, people paying $50 and up for them.

i like very few of any of the modern releases, i stick with mostly good solid ohio cheap good decks, bicycle, watermelons, aladdins national card co, tally ho circle and fan back, wynns.

and about disagreeing with me on the simplistic designs, that's fine, that's why i said (imo) in my opinion, but my opinion is based on fact, look at the how many videos contain, tally ho's, wynns, jerry nuggets, smoke and mirrors. while stock and the being from ohio is definitley a factor, so are the simplistic designs, and i dare say that i see way more videos using these kinds of decks as opposed to the one used for your avatar.

that being said, if any of this is coming off as hostile, it's totally unintentional, i'm just opinionated, and sometimes words on a screen don't accurately portray my tone.

thanks for your honesty, and i hope to hear more.

[john]

While a recoloring is a recoloring no matter how you look at it i feel that the wording is what gets people so pissed at D&D but not at db. The twins marketed their recolorings as a brand new version while in reality it isn't, its simply a recolored design. David Blaine on the other hand had recolorings but marketed them as all apart of the same series.

[cosmicsecret]

I dont mind the re-prints at all - but pricing them that high is the big cash grab.
Releasing them individually like the Ace Fultons so that collectors can finish the S&M Series.
David Blaine was always fair in pricing his cards and about his releases.
i believe if the bucks had priced the box at $50 no one would have cried out loud.

[reckone1999]

While a recoloring is a recoloring no matter how you look at it i feel that the wording is what gets people so pissed at D&D but not at db. The twins marketed their recolorings as a brand new version while in reality it isn't, its simply a recolored design. David Blaine on the other hand had recolorings but marketed them as all apart of the same series.

even so, aren't dan and dave's all a part of the "smoke and mirrors" series?

[john]

While a recoloring is a recoloring no matter how you look at it i feel that the wording is what gets people so pissed at D&D but not at db. The twins marketed their recolorings as a brand new version while in reality it isn't, its simply a recolored design. David Blaine on the other hand had recolorings but marketed them as all apart of the same series.

even so, aren't dan and dave's all a part of the "smoke and mirrors" series?

Good point, but the difference between the 2 is that you are going from a high standard to the same high standard in terms of david blaine decks. With D&D they went from high standard beautiful artwork decks to the same back design for the next three, then only to end it with reprinting 5 other decks in the series they said they wouldn't.

[reckone1999]

I dont mind the re-prints at all - but pricing them that high is the big cash grab.
Releasing them individually like the Ace Fultons so that collectors can finish the S&M Series.
David Blaine was always fair in pricing his cards and about his releases.
i believe if the bucks had priced the box at $50 no one would have cried out loud.

yea, agreeably the price is absolutely ridiculous for deck that is just being introduced for purchase and is not sold out.

however, i will say this, considering v3 and v4 are among my favorites of the series and v3 comanding $80-$100 and v4 $30-$40 this obviously is still good for me in comparison.

but this is besides the point, obviously this release is completely justified in being called a cash grab. but people have been refering to v4-v6 as cash grabs when they were just recolorings, and i'm just trying to be objective, and hear peoples reasonings for this, because with all the other series that have done the same thing, i just don't understand why these things are so vilified, other than their creators are less than honest.

[reckone1999]

While a recoloring is a recoloring no matter how you look at it i feel that the wording is what gets people so pissed at D&D but not at db. The twins marketed their recolorings as a brand new version while in reality it isn't, its simply a recolored design. David Blaine on the other hand had recolorings but marketed them as all apart of the same series.

even so, aren't dan and dave's all a part of the "smoke and mirrors" series?

Good point, but the difference between the 2 is that you are going from a high standard to the same high standard in terms of david blaine decks. With D&D they went from high standard beautiful artwork decks to the same back design for the next three, then only to end it with reprinting 5 other decks in the series they said they wouldn't.

i guess that's even more the point, in the smoke and mirrors series there was 3 different versions of the b/w and then the recolorings v4-46

with the split spades there wasn't any derivation other than color.

[alric]

i just don't understand why these things are so vilified, other than their creators are less than honest.

That IS why they're so vilified, because the creators are douches. You accurately listed all their detestable behavior, then you say you don't understand why they are so detested? Take away who made and marketed the S&Ms, then all you have are pieces of paper.

[cosmicsecret]

The Split Spades Lions had different Gaff Cards with each color and the blue (and the blue ones in sepia boxes ) ones were pre stacked in Juan Tamariz Stack (like the White Lions Series A and B) The White Lions Series B had new boxes and a new ace+jokers.Plus some differences in the court cards etc.

[reckone1999]

i just don't understand why these things are so vilified, other than their creators are less than honest.

That IS why they're so vilified, because the creators are douches. You accurately listed all their detestable behavior, then you say you don't understand why they are so detested? Take away who made and marketed the S&Ms, then all you have are pieces of paper.

which is exactly my point, i'm buying the pieces of paper, not the people who created them.

i mean let's be honest while they're guilty of being dishonest ever since back in the days when they told ellusionist that they would make the trilogy an E exclusive, and then went on to sell it on not only their own personal website, but every other that would buy it as well. a lot of companies are guilty of far worse.

i don't know if anyone was familiar with the high rate of suicide of people who were working in the China Iphone factory due to horrific working conditions, but it makes dan and dave look spiffy clean.

yet the majority of people still buy iphones.

or the inhumane way animals are kept in very confined spaces on modern farms, yet people don't bitch too much about that and continue buying food from them.

i guess my point is exactly what you said, they're pieces of paper, and whether or not i like them is what drives me to buy them, while the shady and often stupid practices of the people who make them is a distant concern for me. because as with the other examples i pointed out it's really small potatoes in the grand scheme of things.

thomas edison while brilliant was an a hole, but i don't see anyone saying i'm not going to use lightbulbs anymore, that stupid jerk! lol

[reckone1999]

The Split Spades Lions had different Gaff Cards with each color and the blue (and the blue ones in sepia boxes ) ones were pre stacked in Juan Tamariz Stack (like the White Lions Series A and B) The White Lions Series B had new boxes and a new ace+jokers.Plus some differences in the court cards etc.

yea, i guess the most significant differences you mentioned there are the differences between series a and b, but still mostly the same, little tweaks.

and i by no means mean to belittle david or the decks, as i love both.

i espeically appreciate the marking system and stack for both decks.

the only reason i brought them up is because i don't understand why people hated the colored versions of v4-v6 so much, on the basis of recoloring when everyone else does it too.

[BMPokerworld]

The Split Spades Lions had different Gaff Cards with each color and the blue (and the blue ones in sepia boxes ) ones were pre stacked in Juan Tamariz Stack (like the White Lions Series A and B) The White Lions Series B had new boxes and a new ace+jokers.Plus some differences in the court cards etc.

yea, i guess the most significant differences you mentioned there are the differences between series a and b, but still mostly the same, little tweaks.

and i by no means mean to belittle david or the decks, as i love both.

i espeically appreciate the marking system and stack for both decks.

the only reason i brought them up is because i don't understand why people hated the colored versions of v4-v6 so much, on the basis of recoloring when everyone else does it too.

Personally, I like the recoloring of decks and making a series out of them. Some people don't and I understand that. I guess what I don't understand is there seems to be a lack of consistency about complaints. The seasons decks that were just released are the same decks except with a different box coloring. Isn't that the same thing or am I missing something?

Thanks!

[reckone1999]

The Split Spades Lions had different Gaff Cards with each color and the blue (and the blue ones in sepia boxes ) ones were pre stacked in Juan Tamariz Stack (like the White Lions Series A and B) The White Lions Series B had new boxes and a new ace+jokers.Plus some differences in the court cards etc.

yea, i guess the most significant differences you mentioned there are the differences between series a and b, but still mostly the same, little tweaks.

and i by no means mean to belittle david or the decks, as i love both.

i espeically appreciate the marking system and stack for both decks.

the only reason i brought them up is because i don't understand why people hated the colored versions of v4-v6 so much, on the basis of recoloring when everyone else does it too.

Personally, I like the recoloring of decks and making a series out of them. Some people don't and I understand that. I guess what I don't understand is there seems to be a lack of consistency about complaints. The seasons decks that were just released are the same decks except with a different box coloring. Isn't that the same thing or am I missing something?

Thanks!

LOL

valid point sir!

[hikeeba]

Personally, I like the recoloring of decks and making a series out of them. Some people don't and I understand that. I guess what I don't understand is there seems to be a lack of consistency about complaints. The seasons decks that were just released are the same decks except with a different box coloring. Isn't that the same thing or am I missing something?
Thanks!

Yes - there was no hype or expectations that the Seasons decks would have any real difference from the originals. Also, there's no big-ass "AC" across the middle of the deck. And the Seasons deck is truly artistic. Also, you don't have to buy the original Seasons deck to get the new decks. In fact, you can even buy them separately. Alex has honor. The twins have no honor. (And at least I can pretend Blaine's cards are actually Diamondback cards.)
Everyone seems to want to drag other people into this to try to excuse Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-douche's actions. But no one has hyped so much and let so down than these two. But to each their own. If you like their stuff, there's more than enough v5s & v6s floating around that you can build an actual-size card house with them.

[BMPokerworld]

Personally, I like the recoloring of decks and making a series out of them. Some people don't and I understand that. I guess what I don't understand is there seems to be a lack of consistency about complaints. The seasons decks that were just released are the same decks except with a different box coloring. Isn't that the same thing or am I missing something?
Thanks!

Yes - there was no hype or expectations that the Seasons decks would have any real difference from the originals. Also, there's no big-ass "AC" across the middle of the deck. And the Seasons deck is truly artistic. Also, you don't have to buy the original Seasons deck to get the new decks. In fact, you can even buy them separately. Alex has honor. The twins have no honor. (And at least I can pretend Blaine's cards are actually Diamondback cards.)
Everyone seems to want to drag other people into this to try to excuse Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-douche's actions. But no one has hyped so much and let so down than these two. But to each their own. If you like their stuff, there's more than enough v5s & v6s floating around that you can build an actual-size card house with them.

I wasn't trying to drag anyone else into this conversation. I was just making a point that complaints seem to have less to do with whether a deck is recolored or not and more to do with how it is marketed. I 100% agree that they should have made the V7's stand alone, especially since the rest of the decks in the box are not originals and have been reprinted for this release.

What I think would have been neat, is if they offered a limited number of the original decks with the V7's in a specially designed box, say 100 of them.

Just for the record, Alex doesn't own the artwork for the Seasons decks, Jay does. It was Jay's decision to have them reprinted using a cheaper foil. That came directly from Jay.

Thanks!

[MJF]

I don't mind recoloring, smaller changes on decks being turned into a series, but it does bother me when they over charge for a "new" deck with such small changes...

[alric]

Wow, let's not compare the Bucks to Edison or Steve Jobs, they're nowhere near as important. iphones and lightbulbs are priced within their normal market range, the S&M v.7 are not priced anywhere near reality. If you find the business practices of a company morally bankrupt, then don't support them - you have to pick and choose according to your own conscience.

As for re-colorations, I don't have a problem with multiple color variations of good decks, the more the merrier. But don't make them out to be something more than that like the Bucks do. Even in their most recent hype leading up to the launch of v.7, D&D claimed each successive version were ground-breaking innovations. No they weren't, they're just different colors. Other designers who make multiple color variations don't make claim to such pretentious bullshit. That is the difference.

You're clearly a fan of D&D, so you overlook all that bullshit and it doesn't affect your preference for their decks. And that's fine. Own it, its your personal preference and its right for you and don't let anyone else tell you otherwise. Having said that, your original question was why do the S&M v.4-6 get so much flak while other color variants don't receive the same hatred. I think the answer for most people is obvious and only the most die-hard fanboys don't get it.

[hikeeba]

I wasn't trying to drag anyone else into this conversation.

Sorry, Mike, I wasn't trying to pull a j'accuse on you. The OP brought Blaine into it (not that I'm a fanboy of him either). I think alric summed it up best, saying you can't really separate the variations from the variationers.....

What I think would have been neat is, if they offered a limited number of the original decks with the V7's in a specially designed box, say 100 of them.

There you go - a great idea! Very Blaine-esque. Give everyone who wants one the opportunity to complete their set, and let those who missed out or who want one to pay the premium for the higher end collector's set.

Just for the record, Alex doesn't own the artwork for the Seasons decks, Jay does. It was Jay's decision to have them reprinted using a cheaper foil. That came directly from Jay.
Thanks!

Thanks for the clarification. (It sure is nice artwork....)

[BMPokerworld]

Wow, let's not compare the Bucks to Edison or Steve Jobs, they're nowhere near as important. iphones and lightbulbs are priced within their normal market range, the S&M v.7 are not priced anywhere near reality. If you find the business practices of a company morally bankrupt, then don't support them - you have to pick and choose according to your own conscience.

As for re-colorations, I don't have a problem with multiple color variations of good decks, the more the merrier. But don't make them out to be something more than that like the Bucks do. Even in their most recent hype leading up to the launch of v.7, D&D claimed each successive version were ground-breaking innovations. No they weren't, they're just different colors. Other designers who make multiple color variations don't make claim to such pretentious bullshit. That is the difference.

You're clearly a fan of D&D, so you overlook all that bullshit and it doesn't affect your preference for their decks. And that's fine. Own it, its your personal preference and its right for you and don't let anyone else tell you otherwise. Having said that, your original question was why do the S&M v.4-6 get so much flak while other color variants don't receive the same hatred. I think the answer for most people is obvious and only the most die-hard fanboys don't get it.

I assume this post was referring to me. I am not a fanboy and I do not have any of their decks. I did not add them to my personal collection and I sold all of our allotments over the years without retaining any. My POINT was about the inconsistency of the complaints. If you don't like the V-5's-V7's because they are just recolored, then you shouldn't like the seasons decks or any other decks that are just recolored. It seems that people are bashing certain decks based on how they are being marketed instead of whether they are recolored or not. Recoloring is recoloring. Whether it is the Seasons deck or any other decks that are just recolored, it is the same thing. Personally, I thought the Seasons deck was very innovative and I did add them to my personal collection.

Thanks!

[BMPokerworld]

I wasn't trying to drag anyone else into this conversation.

Sorry, Mike, I wasn't trying to pull a j'accuse on you. The OP brought Blaine into it (not that I'm a fanboy of him either). I think alric summed it up best, saying you can't really separate the variations from the variationers.....

What I think would have been neat is, if they offered a limited number of the original decks with the V7's in a specially designed box, say 100 of them.

There you go - a great idea! Very Blaine-esque. Give everyone who wants one the opportunity to complete their set, and let those who missed out or who want one to pay the premium for the higher end collector's set.

Just for the record, Alex doesn't own the artwork for the Seasons decks, Jay does. It was Jay's decision to have them reprinted using a cheaper foil. That came directly from Jay.
Thanks!

Thanks for the clarification. (It sure is nice artwork....)

No issue Joe. I really liked the Seasons decks as well and you are a 100% right when you say they were marketed differently. Personally, I like it when decks are not over-hyped and the Seasons weren't.........either edition.

Thanks!

[john]

Personally, I like the recoloring of decks and making a series out of them. Some

Just for the record, Alex doesn't own the artwork for the Seasons decks, Jay does. It was Jay's decision to have them reprinted using a cheaper foil. That came directly from Jay.

Thanks!

Wait... what? BM can you send me a PM explaining the situation to me, that would be much appreciated.

[BMPokerworld]

Personally, I like the recoloring of decks and making a series out of them. Some

Just for the record, Alex doesn't own the artwork for the Seasons decks, Jay does. It was Jay's decision to have them reprinted using a cheaper foil. That came directly from Jay.

Thanks!

Wait... what? BM can you send me a PM explaining the situation to me, that would be much appreciated.

There is nothing more to explain actually. Alex need funding for the original deck, Jay provided it and part of the deal was that Jay would retain the rights to the artwork.

Thanks!

[john]

Wait... what? BM can you send me a PM explaining the situation to me, that would be much appreciated.

There is nothing more to explain actually. Alex need funding for the original deck, Jay provided it and part of the deal was that Jay would retain the rights to the artwork.

Thanks!

But whose Jay?

[BMPokerworld]

Wait... what? BM can you send me a PM explaining the situation to me, that would be much appreciated.

There is nothing more to explain actually. Alex need funding for the original deck, Jay provided it and part of the deal was that Jay would retain the rights to the artwork.

Thanks!

But whose Jay?

A card dealer.

[reckone1999]

Personally, I like the recoloring of decks and making a series out of them. Some people don't and I understand that. I guess what I don't understand is there seems to be a lack of consistency about complaints. The seasons decks that were just released are the same decks except with a different box coloring. Isn't that the same thing or am I missing something?
Thanks!

Yes - there was no hype or expectations that the Seasons decks would have any real difference from the originals. Also, there's no big-ass "AC" across the middle of the deck. And the Seasons deck is truly artistic. Also, you don't have to buy the original Seasons deck to get the new decks. In fact, you can even buy them separately. Alex has honor. The twins have no honor. (And at least I can pretend Blaine's cards are actually Diamondback cards.)
Everyone seems to want to drag other people into this to try to excuse Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-douche's actions. But no one has hyped so much and let so down than these two. But to each their own. If you like their stuff, there's more than enough v5s & v6s floating around that you can build an actual-size card house with them.

agreed there was no hype, agreed his initials don't appear on the deck, (not sure why this matters though) seasons deck is artistic, but i'm not crazy about it. i like the old smoke and mirrors versions way better, and yes the dd appears on those. agreed alex has honor and the twins don't. and about the at least i can pretend blaine's cards are actually diamond back cards . . . ? i'm not sure why this is important, i guess you're partial to the diamond back design.

and hikeba i challenge you to demonstrate how anyone in this post has defended dan and dave?

this is the point, eveyone hates the twins so much over petty shit that shouldn't have any influence on whether you like a product or not, which i can tell you hate the later versions. but i gotta ask are these truly the most hideous decks you've ever seen?

is rarity what attracts you to a deck? because i noted that in your earlier comment you mentioned "if you like v5 and v6 there's enough to build a house"

also what type of house are we talking about hikeba? a shack? trilevel? mansion? wayne manor? (including batcave?)

[alric]

I assume this post was referring to me.

Thanks!

No, my post was referring to the OP, Reckone. He still doesn't get that of course D&D's conduct would influence whether we like their products or not.