USPCC deck vs EPCC decks: analysis of quality and handling

Anything and everything playing cards!
User avatar
sinjin7
Member
Member
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 12:17 pm
Cardist: Yes
Collector: Yes
Player: Yes
Decks Owned: 1500
Location: California
Has thanked: 755 times
Been thanked: 985 times

Re: USPCC deck vs EPCC decks: analysis of quality and handli

Unread post by sinjin7 »

EndersGame wrote:He's not crazy about the Master Finish of the Exquisite bolder deck (too stiff), but really likes the Stud Finish of the Chosen deck. Unfortunately we don't get to find out whether the Skull & Bones deck he samples has the JN Finish or the Stud Finish. Furthermore, these have a eye-catching iridescent foil on the card-backs, and Chris is so caught up with telling us how ugly he thinks that looks, that he doesn't really comment on the handling of those cards.
I think it's clear Chris prefers a softer stock. While he may not have commented on the handling of the S&B deck, it is pretty obvious from the video that they are a bit clumpy. None of his fans or spreads were really even with the S&B when compared to the other decks he handled. But that is to be expected with cards with foiled backs, they just aren't going to handle as well. This is probably why Chris liked the Chosen deck the best (which was the only non-foiled deck and with the softest stock) when compared to the other two decks which are foiled. I wish he compared the Sud Finished Chosen deck directly with a Bicycle Rider Back as a comparative point of reference between the USPCC and EPCC. He may have liked the Chosen deck the best among the 3 EPCC decks, but how about in comparison to a Rider Back?

Getting away from the handling of the decks, I want to comment on the print runs and the refracted foiling. In this age of playing card production, I do not consider a 1000 deck print run "limited" anymore. In the past couple of years, the majority of KS decks not made by the USPCC (so we're talking EPCC, LPCC, MPC, NPCC, etc...) are 1000 deck print runs. So the allegedly ultra limited S&B deck is no more rare than the typical KS deck. I disagreed with Chris on the looks of the foiled S&B deck. I didn't find them ugly and off-putting like he did. I like the refracted foiling and I appreciate how EPCC is always pushing the tech aspect of the bells and whistles you can put on a deck. Having said that, I will concede the back design of the S&B deck is not conducive to an all-over refracted foil coverage because it makes the backs look very busy and dizzying. This type of super blingy foil should be used more judiciously. It may have been better to have used regular foil on the S&B with only the two skulls in the center receiving the refracted foil treatment. Or maybe the refracted foil would be better received in a geometric, color-blocked pattern on the back instead of a more intricate pattern like you see in the scroll work on the back of the S&B deck.

I found this video to be very interesting, it was great to see another unbiased perspective on EPCC.
User avatar
EndersGame
Member
Member
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:26 am
Cardist: Yes
Collector: Yes
Player: Yes
Magician: Yes
Has thanked: 521 times
Been thanked: 1178 times
Contact:

Re: USPCC deck vs EPCC decks: analysis of quality and handli

Unread post by EndersGame »

sinjin7 wrote:Getting away from the handling of the decks, I want to comment on the print runs and the refracted foiling. In this age of playing card production, I do not consider a 1000 deck print run "limited" anymore. In the past couple of years, the majority of KS decks not made by the USPCC (so we're talking EPCC, LPCC, MPC, NPCC, etc...) are 1000 deck print runs. So the allegedly ultra limited S&B deck is no more rare than the typical KS deck.
Great post sinjin7.

The point you make about print run sizes is an excellent one. Chris is probably coming from the perspective of decks produced in big print runs by USPCC, and those are probably the ones he himself normally uses and has experience with. He's evidently not that familiar with the crowdfunded side of the custom playing card industry, where it's quite common to produce decks in smaller print runs.
--
BoardGameGeek reviewer EndersGame => Playing Card Reviews <=>Magic Reviews <=> Board Game Reviews <=

Image
User avatar
EndersGame
Member
Member
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:26 am
Cardist: Yes
Collector: Yes
Player: Yes
Magician: Yes
Has thanked: 521 times
Been thanked: 1178 times
Contact:

Re: USPCC deck vs EPCC decks: analysis of quality and handli

Unread post by EndersGame »

PrincessTrouble wrote:I believe Gio's SINS were printed in EPCC's Chinese factory. Another data point to consider.
Now that the SINS deck has been out for over half a year, it wold be good to get some feedback on them, specifically in relation to the handling of these playing cards.

They are among the first decks produced with the JN Finish by LPCC/EPCC in China, rather than the usual factory in Taiwan. It would be great to get some reports from people who have this deck about what the handling is like, and whether the issues that were evident in the other decks printed with the JN Finish in China also affected the SINS decks. (See the overview above by sinjin7, which includes the Skull & Bones deck, and Jackson Robinson's Legal Tender deck, and the issues observed with both of those decks).

How do the cards of the SINS deck fan/spread, and are there any issues with clumping at all? And is there any change after a period of breaking them in, and does this become better/worse?
--
BoardGameGeek reviewer EndersGame => Playing Card Reviews <=>Magic Reviews <=> Board Game Reviews <=

Image
User avatar
sinjin7
Member
Member
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 12:17 pm
Cardist: Yes
Collector: Yes
Player: Yes
Decks Owned: 1500
Location: California
Has thanked: 755 times
Been thanked: 985 times

Re: USPCC deck vs EPCC decks: analysis of quality and handli

Unread post by sinjin7 »

In additions to the SINS deck, we should also include David Blaine's Stoic deck. I passed on the Stoic, but we've had feedback from a credible cardist (alric) and a well-done deck review by thegentlemanwake in the Stoic thread to get a good idea of the latest Chinese EPCC JN finished deck. It sounds like they still don't spread or fan evenly despite being "slippery". And according to the review, we see again inconsistency from deck to deck, so you may get a decent handling deck, or you may get a poorly handling deck that warps.

I don't have the SINS deck either (the trend here is that I'm avoiding the Asian produced decks unless I'm blown away by the design), but seeing the results from the Legal Tender, Skull & Bones, and Stoic decks, I don't have any reason to believe the SINS deck will have excellent handling either. I'm guessing the reason we don't see much feedback on the SINS deck is that it's primarily a collector's deck so most of those decks are probably still sealed and unhandled. Like you, though, I would still like to hear from someone who's opened and handled multiple SINS decks confirm whether what I fear is true: EPCC/LPCC China decks with JN finish continue to have sub-standard and inconsistent quality and handling and should be avoided by cardists until we see improvements from that factory. So far, 3 out of 4, and quite possibly 4 out of 4, of all the known Chinese decks (and I say "known" because there may be more Chinese EPCC/LPCC decks out there masquerading as Taiwanese EPCC/LPCC decks according to guru) don't live up to very high standards of quality handling.

At the end of the day, none of this should be surprising. With very few exceptions, the only reason why anything is ever produced/manufactured/printed in China is because it is cheaper to do so. And it's cheaper because of lower quality processes, lower quality materials, lower levels of regulatory and legal oversight, and cheap labor. Again, with very rare exceptions, no one says to themselves, "I'm going to make it in China to get a superior quality product." It's always, "I'm going to make it in China because it costs me less."
User avatar
EndersGame
Member
Member
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:26 am
Cardist: Yes
Collector: Yes
Player: Yes
Magician: Yes
Has thanked: 521 times
Been thanked: 1178 times
Contact:

Re: USPCC deck vs EPCC decks: analysis of quality and handli

Unread post by EndersGame »

sinjin7 wrote:So far, 3 out of 4, and quite possibly 4 out of 4, of all the known Chinese decks (and I say "known" because there may be more Chinese EPCC/LPCC decks out there masquerading as Taiwanese EPCC/LPCC decks according to guru) don't live up to very high standards of quality handling.
I can add one more to the list: The Meow Deck by Malota (illustrator Mar Hernández). As you'd expect, it features cats for the court cards, in the distinctive and unique style that is typical of Malota's artwork.

I haven't been able to find anything about this deck online, so perhaps what I received was a preview copy of a deck that isn't yet released, although an ad card included in the deck has the date 2017. Does anyone know anything about it? I received it directly from Legends as a sample along with a recent order. Maybe it's just a promotional deck used by Malota himself.

One very cool thing about this deck is that the tuck box actually uses felt material (as well as gold metallic ink).

Image

It clearly states on the tuck box, as you can see below: "Printed in Shanghai PRC on JN Finish card stock with exacting quality by Legends Playing Card Co."

Image

The card stock is very similar to the Diamond finish, but is very slightly thinner (approximately the thickness of one card for the entire deck). An experienced cardist will be able to tell the very slight difference in snap/feel. My son is a very keen cardist, and he actually likes it better than the Diamond finish decks due to the cards being ever so slightly thinner; personally I have a harder time telling the difference in thickness, but that's probably more a reflection of the fact that my cardist abilities haven't quite reached my son's level yet!

I have been absolutely hammering this deck over the last couple of weeks to see how it would perform. After giving it an extremely good workout, it still fans reasonably well. It definitely performs much better than an MPC produced deck in that regard. As far as just the fanning goes, I would give it at least a B+ rating. It is a little clumpy in places, but that's probably just grime and oils that have begun accumulating on the cards, given how much of a beating I have been giving it. I also wonder whether the heavy use of metallic inks is any factor here. The backs are borderless with a lot of metallic ink, while the faces use metallic gold for all the traditionally red suits. Like most Legends decks (besides their Classic finish), the cards aren't deeply embossed and have more of a plastic/sticky feel when spreading/fanning, which often makes them better for packeting than fanning, and that's true of this deck too.

I also have one of the Skull & Bones in the JN Finish, and will give that a good workout too, to see how it compares with this one.
--
BoardGameGeek reviewer EndersGame => Playing Card Reviews <=>Magic Reviews <=> Board Game Reviews <=

Image
User avatar
EndersGame
Member
Member
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:26 am
Cardist: Yes
Collector: Yes
Player: Yes
Magician: Yes
Has thanked: 521 times
Been thanked: 1178 times
Contact:

Re: USPCC deck vs EPCC decks: analysis of quality and handli

Unread post by EndersGame »

EndersGame wrote:I also have one of the Skull & Bones in the JN Finish, and will give that a good workout too, to see how it compares with this one.
Thanks again to sinjin7 for your input about the JN Finish decks produced in China. My experience has also been somewhat mixed. As mentioned above, after extensive use, the Meow Deck did become a little clumpy in places, thus not fanning or spreading as smoothly as I'd like, although that could also be due to the accumulation of grime/oils. My experience with the sample Skull & Bones deck with the JN Finish was more positive, and that has been holding up nicely. So I do have to agree that the level of consistency observed so far isn't as good as we'd like to see.

I've written up a separate article that recounts in much more detail my experience with decks in the three newer/recent finishes from EPCC/LPCC:
- JN Finish (sample deck: Skull & Bones JN Finish)
- STUD Finish (sample deck: Skull & Bones STUD Finish)
- Cardistry Finish (sample deck: Mirage V3 Eclipse Edition)

Review: New finishes from Legends & Expert Playing Cards

Image
--
BoardGameGeek reviewer EndersGame => Playing Card Reviews <=>Magic Reviews <=> Board Game Reviews <=

Image
User avatar
Decknowledgy
Member
Member
Posts: 2221
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2018 5:12 pm
Collector: Yes
Location: Scotland
Has thanked: 1209 times
Been thanked: 1275 times
Contact:

Re: USPCC deck vs EPCC decks: analysis of quality and handli

Unread post by Decknowledgy »

Will there be one thread for Cartamundi's stock and finishes?
"We look at the present through a rear-view mirror; we walk backwards into the future."
                        -- Marshall McLuhan (Media Theory Giant)
Decknowledgy™ (Ted)
Instagram Reviews: https://www.instagram.com/decknowledgy

Portfolio 52
User avatar
EndersGame
Member
Member
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:26 am
Cardist: Yes
Collector: Yes
Player: Yes
Magician: Yes
Has thanked: 521 times
Been thanked: 1178 times
Contact:

Re: USPCC deck vs EPCC decks: analysis of quality and handli

Unread post by EndersGame »

Cartamundi is definitely branching out, besides their B9 stock they also have a C9 stock and an E7 stock.

For now, here's an article I've written about these stocks, and I'll eventually post something similar here as well:

The Cartamundi Decks: A comparison between their popular finishes
https://playingcarddecks.com/blogs/all- ... r-finishes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
--
BoardGameGeek reviewer EndersGame => Playing Card Reviews <=>Magic Reviews <=> Board Game Reviews <=

Image
User avatar
god_lndr
Member
Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun May 29, 2022 12:26 am
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: USPCC deck vs EPCC decks: analysis of quality and handling

Unread post by god_lndr »

Hello boyz,
god_lndr here, half Italian, half Czech, living in Czechia at the moment.
I have been practicing cardistry for 6 years now, and from the first year I have started my quest for the best handling deck.
Today, after trying many many different stocks, I found the one I like the most, the Thin Crushed Bee USPCC.
I have tryed almost every China paper and Cartamundi stocks, but Uspcc at the end won.
I hated Uspcc at first, because of the rough edged and inconsistency, but I realized later that they also can print really high quality cards like Virtuoso, DnD, A1, theese brands really do their best to give be max quality to their customers. Unfortunately as I wrote already even if you go for maximum quality, USPCC cant guaranteed that, so it happens that some batches might feel rough, or are slightly misaligned.
Finally after 5 y into cardistry I discovered the Crushed Bee... I wasn't satisfied with the bycicle crushed, too soft, even if the weight and the thickness of the crushed Bee are pretty much the same. The added snappiness, but still kinda soft, and this feeling of a higher quality are all the little details I need for my crushed uspcc deck, I changed from crush. Byc to crush. Bee.
Speaking about rough edges, I have never felt roughness on a Bee deck, while I have felt roughness on many crushed bicycle decks.

Bee(Premium stock)
Bicycle(Retail stock)

PS: If you want guaranteed quality, smooth edges, and the best finish and coating for cardistry, DnD are the best. They claim to have their personal paper stock, and given the fact A1 is very close to the DnD bros, they maybe also use their paper stock (even if I'm more prone to think this is a misleading marketing campaign, because they used to own the crushed patent, wich they sold to USPCC at the end, and I don't believe much the fact that they own some different paper stock than USPCC, they just use the fact they invented Crushed decks, and claim to print the decks on their own stock.

"Printed by the United States Playing Card Company on our proprietary thin stock developed for Cardistry." cit. DnD

Virtuoso until P1(black and white) had perfect decks, unfortunately when I have got the newest P1 Foundations(red, white and black), the decks are rough. Probably because they've printed less decks this time(because it was a newsletter inner circle event only for subscribers - no market release) and could not affort the web press... who knows... Both DnD and A1 use both crushed premium and retail stocks, while Virtuoso prints only on retail, they also have an extra crushing on their decks, Virts are the thinnes USPCC decks, that extra softness is something I sometimes enjoyed but the Beed stung me and I fell in love with her.

CRUSHED PREMIUM BEE, in my modest opinion, will always be on the first place for cardistry.


Thank you guys
Have a nice day

god
User avatar
GandalfPC
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3997
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2021 12:01 pm
Cardist: Yes
Collector: Yes
Player: Yes
Magician: Yes
White Whale: Golden Oath
Decks Owned: 1600
Location: New Mexico
Has thanked: 5844 times
Been thanked: 3548 times

Re: USPCC deck vs EPCC decks: analysis of quality and handling

Unread post by GandalfPC »

Edges that let me faro in either direction most perfectly and with greatest ease are key - long lasting cards that can handle abuse is also key - perfect fans are key - snap is key - frankly I have a whole ring of keys.

I like a deck that is a joy in the hand, that is ready for magic and cardistry at the drop of a hat - and since that hand is my hand it has its own peculiar wants.

In the end it is a scientific approach, an explorers approach - a search for the perfect deck or in my case decks. And I think that such things can only be put in context by the person that will be using them and what they will use them for.

So please, give all the perspective you have to offer, from whatever angle you approach cards from - for there are going to be people here that will benefit from it.
Hunting Karl Gerich and Elaine Lewis

My collection and tradelist: http://gandalfpc.great-site.net
User avatar
PiazzaDelivery
Member
Member
Posts: 907
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2020 6:39 pm
Has thanked: 347 times
Been thanked: 434 times

Re: USPCC deck vs EPCC decks: analysis of quality and handling

Unread post by PiazzaDelivery »

god_lndr wrote: Sun May 29, 2022 1:03 am PS: If you want guaranteed quality, smooth edges, and the best finish and coating for cardistry, DnD are the best.
I thought I was the only one.

I'm not a cardistry guy (card magic FTW), but the best deck I've handled over the last several years is Tom's Town, printed on "our proprietary crushed-stock preferred by professionals". Holy BALLS to those cards sing. My fingers think themselves magic wands. It really is the best imo; I wholeheartedly agree with you my friend.
"[...] But someday you will be old enough to start reading fairy tales again."
https://www.portfolio52.com/profile/20093
User avatar
Harvonsgard
Member
Member
Posts: 9224
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 6:53 am
Cardist: Yes
Player: Yes
White Whale: Your Mami
Decks Owned: 420
Location: Paro
Has thanked: 1794 times
Been thanked: 4086 times

Re: USPCC deck vs EPCC decks: analysis of quality and handling

Unread post by Harvonsgard »

god_lndr wrote:Virts are the thinnes USPCC decks, ...
Which is definitely true for their FW17 release. However their SS15 (the only other Virtuoso deck I own besides a sealed SS16) is on the chunkier site so I wouldn't say all their deck are the thinnest USPCC decks.

As for D&D decks (Art of Play, Fulton's) - Dan mentioned last year in the Deckinaround podcast that the only thing "proprietary" about their stock is that they ask USPCC to let the rollers, which crush the stock, run tighter than normal.
From my experience James (J&T), who has close ties to Dan and Dave Buck, seems to use the same preset for his decks as well, just like A1. At least they feel very, very similar to me.
I appreciate different stocks and therefore, I really like to handle decks from different printers as well but after you handled some different decks, coming back to a crushed Bee stock deck feels like coming home.

OG Fulton's Clip Joint and Fulton's October V2 seem to be indestructable in my experience. I own a brick of OG Fulton's plus 2 singles (one is signed ergo unopened)...
I've yet to open the brick.
You want to reclaim your mind and get it out of the hands of the cultural engineers who want to turn you into a half-baked moron consuming all this trash that’s being manufactured out of the bones of a dying world.

avatar credit: 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔄𝔰𝔱𝔯𝔬𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔠𝔢𝔯 by Gands the Scholar @g_a_n_d_s_

rousselle wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:52 pmI very much want this in my collection, but at long last... I have to stop the insanity.
User avatar
GandalfPC
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3997
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2021 12:01 pm
Cardist: Yes
Collector: Yes
Player: Yes
Magician: Yes
White Whale: Golden Oath
Decks Owned: 1600
Location: New Mexico
Has thanked: 5844 times
Been thanked: 3548 times

Re: USPCC deck vs EPCC decks: analysis of quality and handling

Unread post by GandalfPC »

Don’t hear them mentioned often (ever?) but one of the decks I have found fairly indestructible and with great handling are Grinders - printed by Legends
Hunting Karl Gerich and Elaine Lewis

My collection and tradelist: http://gandalfpc.great-site.net
User avatar
god_lndr
Member
Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun May 29, 2022 12:26 am
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: USPCC deck vs EPCC decks: analysis of quality and handling

Unread post by god_lndr »

Thank you Harvonsgard for your opinion.
A little update on my preferences:
I claimed that Crushed Bee are my favorite decks.
Actually I have found myself going back and forth between Crushed Bee and Crushed Bycicle (premium and retail).
They both have something I like, remains the fact that both are Uspcc, so I love the coating. Never fully liked Asians coatings... Too waxy/platicky/oily.... USA cards feel more like paper to me... As an ex casino dealer we mostly dealt plastic cards... I hate them now! Everything that will make feel a deck even close to plastic, I discard the deck from using it, rather I put it on my shelf. The only Asian decks I have been able to enjoy for a while were Tempo from Ark playing cards.

Ok that's it. :)
User avatar
GandalfPC
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3997
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2021 12:01 pm
Cardist: Yes
Collector: Yes
Player: Yes
Magician: Yes
White Whale: Golden Oath
Decks Owned: 1600
Location: New Mexico
Has thanked: 5844 times
Been thanked: 3548 times

Re: USPCC deck vs EPCC decks: analysis of quality and handling

Unread post by GandalfPC »

I did finally manage to crack open a King of Tigers deck - felt great, faro was spot on, but the fan was shy of perfection. The latest Stratosphere’s just arrived today, so I will see if they hit all the marks…

Determined that both decks deserved a bit of breaking in before judging either - so that is what I will do
Hunting Karl Gerich and Elaine Lewis

My collection and tradelist: http://gandalfpc.great-site.net
User avatar
DestinationQ1
Member
Member
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue May 10, 2022 8:56 am
Collector: Yes
Player: Yes
Decks Owned: 450
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 36 times
Contact:

Re: USPCC deck vs EPCC decks: analysis of quality and handli

Unread post by DestinationQ1 »

EndersGame wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:00 pm How do they compare? The big question for a lot of people will be how NPCC produced decks compare with the bigger and well-known names in the playing card industry, especially USPCC, LPCC/EPCC, and MPC. Are they a legitimate option to consider besides the usual contenders? Using the letter grades of common academic grading systems, I'd personally ranks USPCC and LPCC/EPCC as A-grade publishers, and MPC as a B-grade publisher. Not everyone would agree, but in my own opinion I think LPCC/EPCC ranks slightly ahead of USPCC both in terms of card quality and because of their level of innovation and the quality of their tuck boxes, so in the final analysis I'd consider LPCC/EPCC an A+ grade and USPCC an A grade. The fact that USPCC decks don't always have consistent registration (e.g. borders can sometimes be slightly wider/narrower on one side than on the opposite side) also accounts for making them my second choice. But on the whole, project creators who use either source are unlikely to be disappointed. MPC decks on the other hand don't handle quite as smoothly or evenly, and the general consensus of most creators/collectors is that they aren't quite as good, which is why I'd consider them a B-grade. I'd rate Noir Arts decks about the same as MPC - they just don't handle as consistently or sweetly as USPCC/LPCC decks. Like MPC decks, Noir Arts decks aren't a reliable choice for cardistry or card magic. For the average person, they'll be quite satisfactory, and they'll outperform the typical "cheap" deck, hence the B-grade rating, but it's not top of the line. However, Noir Arts produces absolutely stellar tuck boxes, and in my book that means they deserve a higher rating than MPC, so I'd upgrade my final rating for NPCC to a B+. So in order, in my final analysis I'd rank these publishers as follows: A-grade: LPCC/EPCC (A+) and USPCC (A); B-grade: NPCC (B+) and MPC (B). the original article for many more details and comments on the quality, handling, and durability of the NPCC cards.
Hello Mr EndersGame, firstly, love what you do for the community. Since I am pretty new to the card design community, your articles and experience is very helpful. Would like to pick your brain and seek some advice if you don’t mind..

1) I am preparing my next KS launch OCULUS Tarot+Playing cards. I have done a previous prototype launch with Shuffled Ink and are now looking for a more power house manufacture to do a larger print job. I have used USPCC before and would like to try a different company. You have mention LPCC/EPCC in your post 4-5 years ago. Does the rating still holds till now or has it changed?

2) From the video that you posted of Chris Ramsey, he recommended the Stud Finish. Has there been any new finish that may surpass the Stud in your opinion?

3) Since LPCC/EPCC is based in Taiwan, I am worried about the shipping cost to be distributed, most likely at Gamblers Warehouse, in the US. Maybe I can distributed both in Asia and in the USA? Any article(s) that you have written that speaks about Asian fulfillment company or shipping related topics?

4) Is there another US base company that you speak of that is almost as good as USPCC?

Thanks and keep up the great work,
DQ1

P.s. just started this article that you have written. This is great!
https://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/1159 ... c-and-epcc
User avatar
EndersGame
Member
Member
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:26 am
Cardist: Yes
Collector: Yes
Player: Yes
Magician: Yes
Has thanked: 521 times
Been thanked: 1178 times
Contact:

Re: USPCC deck vs EPCC decks: analysis of quality and handling

Unread post by EndersGame »

Hello DQ1, best wishes to you as you work on your playing card project. As you already discovered, Shuffled Ink is great for prototypes, and I'm glad that worked for you. I've personally found their service good as well.

Going with LPCC for the larger print run is not a bad move. But LPCC's Stud Finish was a very limited stock and to my knowledge is not available to customers anymore. It's almost too soft to be practical anyway. You should also know that instead of printing mostly in Taiwan as they did previously, LPCC and EPCC are now operating primarily out of a new factory in China that they are partnering with. You can read full details in the article you linked to, including about their Viper Finish and their Crushed Classic Stock, which are their two most popular ones. I don't know that printing outside the US is going to increase your fulfilment costs significantly, because manufacturers operating from China and Taiwan seem to have good channels in place to make their final prices a very competitive alternative to going with USPCC in the USA.

If you want card quality that is almost on par with USPCC, another option you should look into is WJPC. It is also based in China, but their German 300gsm card stock has been receiving very positive reviews, and most people consider its quality and handling close to being on the level of USPCC's crushed stock. Personally I've been very impressed with the durability and handling quality of this particular stock, and so have a lot of people. For an overview of this particular manufacturer, see my article Playing Card Manufacturer: Shenzhen Wangjing Printing Company. WJPC has been used successfully by big name designers like Stockholm17 and others, and is making an increasingly positive and substantial contribution to the playing card industry.
--
BoardGameGeek reviewer EndersGame => Playing Card Reviews <=>Magic Reviews <=> Board Game Reviews <=

Image
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests