The Genii Forum

PickaCard wrote:

Richard Kaufman wrote:I believe each book will come with two identical decks.
There are certain gimmicks I cannot print because USPC won't let me print an altered Rider Back.

You do have other options if you want to include a complete set of gimmicks, which would be nice since this publication is a once in a lifetime thing. Phoenix or mandolin backs strike me as viable options.

Richard can do it even easier than that! The USPCC has an alternate back design which is very similar to the standard Bicycle Riders back design (the name escapes me) and that design can be altered.


The USPPC offers it as an alternative for the purpose of altering the backs without breaking their policy with the Bicycle Riders back design.

Many of the Deland gimmicks can easily be made with scissors and rubber cement.

PickaCard wrote:

Richard Kaufman wrote:I believe each book will come with two identical decks.
There are certain gimmicks I cannot print because USPC won't let me print an altered Rider Back.

You do have other options if you want to include a complete set of gimmicks, which would be nice since this publication is a once in a lifetime thing. Phoenix or mandolin backs strike me as viable options.

Unfortunately neither of those decks are viable options because you need to remove the cards from the deck when you start the trick. I want the cards to match the deck most commonly used: Bicycle Rider back.

And, yes, it has always been implicit in DeLand's work that one could, after purchasing the printed gimmick from him, make a better looking one by cutting up regular cards and using glue (in our case glue stick is the best method).

Bill: who uses rubber cement any more?

Rubber Cement is really good for making gaffs out of paper money. You can often peel the glued pieces apart if you need to spend the money. Since we are magicians, its more like "when" you need to spend it, not "if."

Richard Kaufman wrote:Unfortunately neither of those decks are viable options because you need to remove the cards from the deck when you start the trick. I want the cards to match the deck most commonly used: Bicycle Rider back.

Michael Weber has some great work where he mixes Bicycle Rider backed cards with Mandolin backed cards and they are handled by the spectators none the wiser. So Mandolin backs would likely blend in well with Rider backs.

As for making my own gaff gluing part of a card on the other, won't this result in a thick card? Not as ideal as a flat one layered gimmicked card.

I believe that Mandolin backs are the cards I was referring to in my previous post.

Richard Kaufman wrote:Bill: who uses rubber cement any more?

Well, it is a poor substitute for diachylon.

Here's a goofy (but practical) question: I need to make a gaffed envelope with rubber cement and the author of the book said to use a "high quality" rubber cement. I thought all rubber cements were the same---are there any particular brands that are considered better for an application like "Clippo"?

Thanks!

I.M. Magician wrote:I believe that Mandolin backs are the cards I was referring to in my previous post.

So let me ask a serious question, then. I am faced with the following options for a particular trick of DeLand's.

I can print the trick in the following manner:

1. Use DeLand's original cards so what you will get is a reproduction of an antique.

2. Use Mandolin backs which most laymen won't notice if you actually want to do the trick for people by taking the cards out of the deck (which is of course how any of these tricks should be handled).

I want some votes!

Of course, I would say that it would be great to have both versions. If you must narrow it down to only one, perhaps a more usable version would be best. Therefore, Mandolin backs would be the way to go.

I suspect that opinions will be divided concerning this issue so, ultimately, it will be your decision Richard.

Let me ask you this. Since you plan to provide two decks, maybe one deck would be (at least to some extent) nostalgic and the other functional. That way, we would receive the best of both worlds so to speak.

I love the idea of owning both the useable cards and the collectible cards!

Richard:

Not sure if this is cost feasible, but here goes:

Can the cards with the gaffed faces only be in Rider Backs, and the cards that need gaffed backs be Mandolin?

I was just thinking about including two sets of everything as Richard has planned but with all possible variations and charging more for the set. It can’t be a fortune and that way, everyone will be happy and what we will receive will be as comprehensive as possible.

For me, this Deland set is a very important work and it would be a shame to cut corners. It should be as wonderful as possible!

USPCC also makes the Maiden back, which IMO is far nicer and more "reminiscent" of the standard Rider back than is the Mandolin back (which I don't like at all due to the weird, spindly legs of the angel).

Bicycle Maiden back would get my vote.

The MAIDEN design was the one I had in mind and was talking about because it looks more like the Rider back. It almost looks identical!

If you google them, you will see what I mean.

If the gaffs can be easily DIYed with a regular deck and simple materials, I would rather the decks that come with the book to have the appropriate period vibe.

PapaG wrote:If the gaffs can be easily DIYed with a regular deck and simple materials, I would rather the decks that come with the book to have the appropriate period vibe.

Wouldn’t having ALL of them be best?

I just looked up photos of the three different backs to be certain and the Maiden back looks more like the Rider back than the other one.

I.M. Magician wrote:The MAIDEN design was the one I had in mind and was talking about because it looks more like the Rider back. It almost looks identical!

...which would seem to undermine USPCC's efforts to not dilute their own trademark by not printing modified Rider backs, no?

I'd be curious to hear Bob Farmer's view on this...

I read something some time ago where orders were being accepted for specially printed cards and it mentioned that the Maiden back could be altered but not the Riders.

As far as I am aware, the only time they altered the backs of the Riders was to make the TOONY ANGEL trick decks.

It would be interesting to know why the USPCC has this rule and what their thinking is behind it. As well, why the two alternate designs. Perhaps as a compromise for alteration purposes.

USPC will not alter their Joker, Ace of Spades, or Rider Back design because their lawyers have told them that doing so might dilute their trademark. Trademarks are not like copyrights: they never expire as long as they are in use in their original form (thus "Coca-Cola" for example). I'm not sure if it's malarkey or not, and that's irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what they'll let me print.

I must add that both decks that come with the book will be identical. That is because I have to print a minimum number of decks, and that number will allow me to include two identical decks with each book. Besides, you're going to play with one and leave the other one sealed!

To me, the gimmicked cards will have the greatest value if you can add them to a deck and do the tricks with them.

Well, this has given me food for thought.

Maiden backs. Hmmm.

What were Deland (back) decks? Is this the kind of item where we would wish to have blank faced cards printed up using the back design per Deland's advertising?

Richard Kaufman wrote:

I.M. Magician wrote:I believe that Mandolin backs are the cards I was referring to in my previous post.

So let me ask a serious question, then. I am faced with the following options for a particular trick of DeLand's.

I can print the trick in the following manner:

1. Use DeLand's original cards so what you will get is a reproduction of an antique.

2. Use Mandolin backs which most laymen won't notice if you actually want to do the trick for people by taking the cards out of the deck (which is of course how any of these tricks should be handled).

I want some votes!

My vote is to print both and provide 4 decks with the book. Your cost, which you will pass on to the consumer, will provide greater value in the overall product. By this, I mean that gimmicked decks are sold for about $20-$40 each. If you provide 4 gimmicked decks that is comparable to at least $80 value. I doubt you would have to add that much to the price tag of the book and the consumer will see the overall product as a more interesting value.

If I am pushed to vote for one option, it would be for Mandolin backs.

I agree with the Maiden back design suggestion. Much closer to the Rider back design than Mandolin.

Jonathan Townsend wrote:What were Deland (back) decks? Is this the kind of item where we would wish to have blank faced cards printed up using the back design per Deland's advertising?

This is The Dollar Deck, later sold by S.S. Adams as The Automatic Deck. Those have what are commonly known as "DeLand backs."

As far as including four decks with the book rather than two, I don't think you have any idea what the time and money involved in that are.

Perhaps you can tell us what the price increase for the set would be for 4 decks instead of 2 and then allow the buyers to vote on it.

It would be a shame to not have everything you can provide concerning the cards.

Then, you will hear I wish Richard did this, I wish Richard did that and so on. If we get the works, then no one has anything to complain about except the price and it won’t be a fortune so should not be a determining factor.

IMHO, this is much too important a work to cut corners. You may as well make it a comprehensive masterpiece!

Richard,

USPCC originally printed my "Son of Hyper-warp" gaffs with Rider backs. When they stopped altering Rider backs, I switched to Maidens. The difference in appearance is negligible. I highly recommend the Maidens.

If the USPCC keeps changing hands as I heard, you would think that the new owners would be willing to change the rules.

They altered the Rider backs before at least twice as you can see from this thread, so why not for this worthwhile Deland effort?

If an alternative must be used, then the MAIDEN back is the one to use as you can plainly see if you compare photos of all three backs. It’s closer to the Rider design than that of the Mandolin design.

[quote="Richard Kaufman
As far as including four decks with the book rather than two, I don't think you have any idea what the time and money involved in that are.[/quote]

You are correct. However, as a customer or your fine products, I know I would like to get a most "complete" book and props. Tenyoism had an incredible amount of content in addition to the books, even more so for the deluxe edition.

Between Maidens and Mandolins, I pick Maidens. We're still talking about playing cards, right?

I can see adding a Maiden gaff to a Bicycle Rider deck and doing a trick. To be honest, if there's a gaff I want to use, I'll just buy a Maiden deck, but to experiment I would add it to a Rider. I would not be comfortable adding a Mandolin gaff to a Rider deck. I know there are performers who mix Mandolins and Bikes successfully, but it crosses my comfort threshold.

This suggests one variation for Richard: provide two gaff decks and a matching Maiden deck. This wouldn't add any extra time to the project and would only cost the price of a deck. I think it would increase the perceived value if you could open the book, read a trick, and do it immediately, without having to wait for a matching deck to arrive in the mail.

I think you make good points Pete!

I as well wouldn’t be comfortable mixing two different backs. Adding a Maiden deck does add convenience.

So, those who would enjoy owning the vintage backs will just have to get over it unfortunately. What a shame...

I'm asking about the cards Deland printed his gaffs to match. For example what back design was his two card transposition gaff?

*

However, Printing up the gaffs in "Deland Dollar Back" cards... would unify the entire product design.

It's not "a shame." I am trying to provide readers with gimmicked cards they can use, not museum pieces.

Jonathan, DeLand used different backs at different times, but eventually settled on a Steamboat red and black plaid.

This is going to be one of those "swing for the fences" type decisions for collectors and amateurs. Deland had a few card back designs that folks may have seen -pictures here:
http://www.praestigiator.com/index.php? ... ore_deland

If the gaffs are not easily replaceable it's an even more difficult choice. Great project.

Deland addicts like myself and many others I am certain will want the opportunity to own any and all reproductions of the vintage cards we can get! Great stuff...!

On the other hand, owning USABLE gaff cards created by Deland is also a very desirable thing.

I am hoping that Richard says: “What the heck, I am going for the works” and provides everything possible.

Here is something else to consider. By including the Maiden cards, you are providing functional inclusions. By adding the vintage original back design cards, you are providing historical inclusions.

So, FUNCTIONAL vs. HISTORICAL is going on here. Shouldn’t this Deland set provide both aspects? If it doesn’t, then it will have a void and that will lessen the success of this endeavor.

In essence, this work is about history AND Deland’s card tricks. Therefore, access to both by the owner is necessary to enjoy the Deland experience completely . Some may say that the vintage stuff could be in the book and seen there. True but not as great as actually having the cards themselves in one’s collection.

I see a quote here in a previous post of $20 to $40 per deck. Where are you getting that from? Those prices are much higher than they typically are in most cases. Perhaps $10 to $20 would be more accurate.

So interesting thread!

I remember a gaff deck by Ellusionist that included some rider back cards where the corner's angels move to one corner.

I have never thought before to insert gaffs into an odd backed deck. It sounds interesting, I'm sure it can work. I not see the necesity to include a Maiden full deck. I have never had a Maiden deck on hands but pictures show it very similar to Raiders so Maiden have my vote. Mandolines I only have the one given at last Genii Convention.

It sounds like a very interesting book, so considering alongside "Great Greater Magic", currency exchange, both being masive (and heavy) books, shipping costs, etc etc, I must start saving right now.

By the way Richard: Any project on time for Magic Live?

Richard Kaufman wrote:I am faced with the following options for a particular trick of DeLand's.

1. Use DeLand's original cards so what you will get is a reproduction of an antique.

I assume that the book will contain photos of all of Deland's original gaffs, so reproductions of these as actual cards (that I will not use) seems to be a bit redundant.

2. Use Mandolin backs which most laymen won't notice if you actually want to do the trick for people by taking the cards out of the deck.

This seems the better way to go, for the benefit those who want to actually perform the "particular trick" to which you refer.

I'm really looking forward to this this book, and to be honest, if you left out the decks altogether, I wouldn't be upset.
A nice little bonus I guess, but nothing to do with why I'll be getting the book.

I would prefer the mandolin approach or as some have mentioned maiden backs. I feel like either are close enough.

I say include the vintage backs. There are so many different back designs a person could be using even if you just take into account the more standard brands. Bicycle, Tally-ho, Studs, Bees and on and on. Not to mention if you prefer red backs or blue backs. Personally, if I want to actually use a gaff in performance I will just make the gaff. Any Deland gaff I have seen is easy enough to make.