Who reads the Draft section...................................vasta41 wrote:Another non-red flag for me was the fact that there's been a thread for this deck in the Drafting Board forum since June 3rd.
JK of course
Who reads the Draft section...................................vasta41 wrote:Another non-red flag for me was the fact that there's been a thread for this deck in the Drafting Board forum since June 3rd.
It's not shown on the project page, but the first update explains what to do.JuFiN wrote:New black edition deck now available!
I'm completely in favor of MetalLux foiled decks. What I find interesting is that the USPCC made it economically feasible for them to handle the foiling on the cards over LPCC. Also interesting that Joker & Thief switched to the USPCC over EPCC for their re-launch of their Dystopia deck as well, citing better pricing and faster production times.rousselle wrote:They sent out a project Update today saying that the two LPCC decks will be printed by USPCC, instead. Pretty interesting, no?
I think it won't be metallux....Because if you look at the foiled area, it is minimal and not covering much of the card back. Metallux is done through a 4 or 5 step process and it works well when there is a lot of area required to foil or when the design is intricate enough with a stroke width of < 0.1- 0.2 mm.sinjin7 wrote:I'm completely in favor of MetalLux foiled decks. What I find interesting is that the USPCC made it economically feasible for them to handle the foiling on the cards over LPCC. Also interesting that Joker & Thief switched to the USPCC over EPCC for their re-launch of their Dystopia deck as well, citing better pricing and faster production times.rousselle wrote:They sent out a project Update today saying that the two LPCC decks will be printed by USPCC, instead. Pretty interesting, no?
Interesting in a shady way. Changing printers is a big change. That's not what the campaign was based on.rousselle wrote:They sent out a project Update today saying that the two LPCC decks will be printed by USPCC, instead. Pretty interesting, no?
I call it bullshit. On Oct. 31 they were sending the art out for approval. Now almost 2 months later they drop LPCC but say the USPCC art was approved. How long does art take to get approved? Anyone know, I'd like to.TGunitedcardists wrote:Interesting in a shady way. Changing printers is a big change. That's not what the campaign was based on.rousselle wrote:They sent out a project Update today saying that the two LPCC decks will be printed by USPCC, instead. Pretty interesting, no?
Imagine someone running a campaign for a red deck, and because blue ink was on sale, they went with blue. People would be pissed. It's not what they pledged for.
I pledge for what was advertised, not because they could get a, "good deal."
You were almost prophetic with your post. Most USPCC decks with MetalLuxe is an all foil back design, with the only exception (that I can think of) being the Gold Monarchs, but that deck is almost all foil in the back. I guess one of the limitations of MetalLuxw is that you can't have spot foiling (as of now) and have to go with all foiled backs, or mostly foiled backs.guru wrote:I just hope that USPCC approval process doesn't result into some sort of design change like removal of foil elements from card back. I've not seen any USPCC deck with this kind of minimal foil on card back, but I don't boast of a large collection and there could be some decks out there.
KS is definitely a "buyer beware" kind of market. You always run a risk when pledging for something that doesn't exist yet. I've excepted this fact and remember it every time I pledge. Most projects are "as-is" but sometimes projects change for the worse ::cough:: JR! ::cough:: Very rarely do projects change for the better and even though the cards we're receiving won't be as advertised I think it's a change for the better and I commend the artist for making the decision he did. Bravo! It would be prudent for other artists to follow suit and think about what can be done to appease backers when faced with adversity rather then spending time spaming everyone about a 4 year birthday party (celebrating 4 years of awesome designs riddled with mistakes?)...sinjin7 wrote:we'll probably have some complainers anyways. . .
Well John you found a complainer. Yes I'm sorry to see them have to pay more for all foil but the art looks more like a woodblock print with unique imperfections. Where are the crisp tight lines? Do they see the foil dot on the right side by the four suits? Why flat pictures and none taken with light shining off the foil? To me it looks more like yellow ink. And what about the tucks and black deck? What issues will they possibly have? I fear, but hope not, more problems coming.sinjin7 wrote:You were almost prophetic with your post. Most USPCC decks with MetalLuxe is an all foil back design, with the only exception (that I can think of) being the Gold Monarchs, but that deck is almost all foil in the back. I guess one of the limitations of MetalLuxw is that you can't have spot foiling (as of now) and have to go with all foiled backs, or mostly foiled backs.guru wrote:I just hope that USPCC approval process doesn't result into some sort of design change like removal of foil elements from card back. I've not seen any USPCC deck with this kind of minimal foil on card back, but I don't boast of a large collection and there could be some decks out there.
So here we see a designer faced with a production set-back and told he couldn't foil the back of his card as he originally wanted. So instead of scrapping the foiling altogether (and pocketing our money as he does so), he makes it work anyway, even at a greater cost to himself (however minimal or significant it may be), and the printer is able to accommodate him. I really can't imagine anyone complaining about an all foil back, especially since the proof card came out very nice, but we'll probably have some complainers anyways. . .
I hope the card back will be gray or something dark to offset the foil. I doubt it since they just showed the foil.Bikefanatic wrote:Sucks that the Bicycle version will have no foil also the back design may look better than the original design with more foil for unbranded deck.
IMO there doesn't need to be any more red alerts- this is definitely cause for concern!jsantafe wrote:Looks like the creator has deleted his account in Kickstarter. Looks fishy but there doesn't seem to be any more red alerts, right?
Well, I did self fund Divine Art but I was prepared from the start. I do understand where you're coming from by the way. These type of actions like changing direction post Kickstarter, not responding or providing regular updates & deleting the account is bad not just for the concerned project creator but to all other legitimate & focussed creators especially the ones who are new to Kickstarter. I checked the first page of this thread and observed that people were skeptical about the project at the start but as soon as the message from GamblersWarehouse arrived, the project just blew past the goal.jerichoholic wrote:Oh yeah, no red flags there at all. Someone we've never heard of self funding 50% of a project and everyone else seemingly wiping their hands clean of this one, Gamblers and Blackout Brother.
You have a direct contact with Concept Grafix?
Users browsing this forum: CallOn84, Fenrir, Google [Bot], PiazzaDelivery, shermjack, vasta41, Zzzzi and 103 guests