Bicycle Imperium

[badpete69]

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.

Who reads the Draft section...................................


JK of course

[JuFiN]

New black edition deck now available!

[Azid]

New black edition deck now available!

It's not shown on the project page, but the first update explains what to do.

direct link to the black deck update:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/12 ... ts/1691379" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just wonder why everybody has to send a massage via kickstarter instead of using backerkit.

[JuFiN]

It's limited so he wants to make sure he doesn't run out, you have to reserve your spot basically. Otherwise 1001 people could pledge when there is only 1000 decks.

[rousselle]

They sent out a project Update today saying that the two LPCC decks will be printed by USPCC, instead. Pretty interesting, no?

[Stepchild]

When I heard, I was a little bummed about that info -- not sufficiently put out to comment on the KS page, but I was looking forward to seeing the contrast b/w these two printers on a virtually identical set of decks.

[sinjin7]

They sent out a project Update today saying that the two LPCC decks will be printed by USPCC, instead. Pretty interesting, no?

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.

[guru]

They sent out a project Update today saying that the two LPCC decks will be printed by USPCC, instead. Pretty interesting, no?

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.

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.

[TGunitedcardists]

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.

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."

[RichK]

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.

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."

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.

This is just a way to, as they admit, to "get it done cheaper" aka more profit for them!

[vasta41]

I'm with sinjin here. If "getting it done cheaper" means printing a deck with USPCC then


Now I will say that a change like this isn't like moving a border .0005mm or anything like that so I can see how this would come as a surprise but if I ordered a Honda, went to pick it up and they gave me a Benz instead, you wouldn't hear me complain!

[jsantafe]

Is it going to be a significantly worst product because of the change? Probably not, besides the misalignment risk USPCC is known in our community. So more profit for them is really ok for me. Why would it be bad if it doesn't hurt you?

[Azid]

I don't care who prints this decks, as long as it is USPCC or EPCC/LPCC.
Both printers have their pro and contra sides in my opinion and i like their products.
Personally i'm not a big fan of getting decks from the same project by 2 different printers, so i'm happy with that decision they did.

[sinjin7]

First of all, what I took from the Update is that USPCC made them an offer to print all three decks, including the foil backed ones, at a price that was competitive with LPCC quotes, so they went with it. I highly doubt Concept Grafix will be making significantly more profit, if any, going with the USPCC given their higher production costs. This was probably more of a logistical decision rather than one based on making more money, and I applaud them for that. They save themselves the inevitable headache from LPCC's slower production times and the patience-sapping, month-long boat ride just to get the decks to the U.S. I think of other recent projects that used both the USPCC and the Taiwan printer (Uusi comes to mind), and they had to deal with holding up their fulfillment because the EPCC/LPCC decks came months after they already had their USPCC decks in hand.

Also, its not like Concept Grafix promised printing from LPCC, and then switched to an utterly crappy printer after they got our cash. Even if your preference if for the Taiwanese printer, unless you're just just a raving EPCC/LPCC fanboy, you can't make the argument that the USPCC is that significant of a drop-off, if any, and there are going to be many who feel this is an upgrade in printer, not a downgrade. Both do fantastic work with foiled cards, but I prefer USPCC's foiling because they don't show a stamp-though of the foiled design on the other side of the card and the handling of the cards are preserved better over EPCC/LPCC foiling.

If you are upset because you prefer the better registration from the Taiwanese factory, then this is a valid gripe and I can sympathize with your angst in regards to that lone issue. For me, I think the USPCC does an acceptable job with their registration. Can it be better? Of course (just look at EPCC/LPCC), but most of their decks are produced within registration tolerances that are fine for me and I feel the few times (relative to the quantity of decks they produce overall) they really jack up the registration, more scrutiny is focused on it (and deservedly so), but that tends to focus people to the relatively few bad apples compared to the vast majority of decks that are produced with good registration.

For me, this wasn't a move to line their pockets with more money, but rather a strategic decision based upon logistics. I consider this a great upgrade in printer due to better foiling technique, card handling, and the fact that my deck isn't going to warp on me within an hour of opening the deck. And whatever potential registration issues that may or may not manifest itself is more than offset by the simpler and faster fulfillment and (imo) higher quality printer.

[guru]

Yeah...this is a good decision if you consider both the quality & faster fulfillment. Note that there will always be some tradeoffs like registration here, but majority of backers are going to like this upgrade barring the exception of a few collectors who would have been looking for a USPCC vs LPCC showdown on decks with similar design.

Think about it from this angle - How many backers would have backed the 2 decks (with not that much difference in design) if they were advertised as being printed by USPCC at the start of the campaign itself?
May be, these guys got higher number of 2 decks being backed just because they were being printed by 2 different printers (USPCC & LPCC in this instance). 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.

[sinjin7]

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.

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.

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. . .

[vasta41]

we'll probably have some complainers anyways. . .

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?)...

[RichK]

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.

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.

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. . .

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.

No update ever mentioned MetalLuxe unless that's the default foil now for USPCC, I don't know.

Do I like complaining about projects...no. I'm mostly always positive about them. Even the Legal Tender non foiled center on the US deck looks better to me vs. the foiled one they pictured and had to change. I can deal with delays as long as they update us too. I just have a gut feeling this is going to get worse. I hope I'm wrong.

[Bikefanatic]

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.

[jsantafe]

All agree but for the record I recall the Espionage (special edition) deck to have spot foil on the back of cards, amarite?

[RichK]

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.

I hope the card back will be gray or something dark to offset the foil. I doubt it since they just showed the foil.

[jsantafe]

Looks like the creator has deleted his account in Kickstarter. Looks fishy but there doesn't seem to be any more red alerts, right?

[vasta41]

Looks like the creator has deleted his account in Kickstarter. Looks fishy but there doesn't seem to be any more red alerts, right?

IMO there doesn't need to be any more red alerts- this is definitely cause for concern!

[jerichoholic]

Glad I bailed on this one. Perhaps people should start contacting playingcards.net since that is his buddy and they are doing fulfillment.

[gianluca1975]

The project claims to be of Dallas (USA) and the website now states that it is an Australian company.
In the absence of answers, we should proceed with the criminal complaint with the competent authority of their nation.

[gianluca1975]

I researched on the internet, if someone needs to identify it can provide all documentation via PM.

[jsantafe]

Looks like Gamblers Warehouse might be the next best option to get some info:

Anybody has a direct contact there? Not to flood them with questions.

[CBJ]

I have a direct contact. I just sent them a message.

That being said... this is from page 1 of this thread

"No Mike. Its not us. Its one of our clients in Dallas whom we provided consulting & fulfillment services for this project.
Don't worry guys no red flag on this one. Its legit. The project owner is self funding 50 percent of it..."

[jerichoholic]

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?

[guru]

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?

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.

The websites associated with this company does look fishy. The address shows they are in Melbourne CBD, I might go & check this week if I get time.