

I hope that Roman could tell us a bit more?




Well I have said this before that I can't to a thumb fan so I don't know about that but all my NPCC decks fan just fine on my one handed fans which I am pretty good at. I have faned them with the whole deck, with half the cards, with 2/3 of the cards and I have no issues with the one handed fans, once you break the cards in that is. The Defunctorum clumps up a bit but it is in a different stock which they haven't used since.JuFiN wrote:None of my NPCC decks fan that well!




+1sinjin7 wrote:The back design is no where close to the least attractive back I've ever seen. I like the back design just fine, very classic. From the prototype, the dual foiling looks very crisp and well registered - I'm very curious to see how well NPCC can execute foiled cards. I'm a sucker for foil, so I'm really looking forward to these. It does appear that the stamping of the foil is embossing the stock to a pretty significant degree, hopefully the impression doesn't bleed through to the front of the cards too much like on EPCC decks, or at all like USPCC Metallux. Whether this deck will be a must buy or not will depend on how custom the courts are and the price. Hopefully there will be good news on both those fronts. So far, I'm really liking what I see.


flashcards wrote:I hate to be negative so I'll try to put this as delicately as I can: foil or not, that is probably the least attractive card back that I have ever seen. I may be in the minority but foil alone does not necessarily make a design attractive. I would use la Chat Noir as an example: minimal foil that really highlights the rest of the design; makes it pop, if you will. I find that far more attractive than, say the latest David Blaine offering with its completely foiled back.









I asked about the gray vs white back and Roman said "Backs are white. This photo is just a low lighting to catch shine of foils."rorschach wrote:If that first photo on the KS page is supposed to be an off white tone like Shermjack noted, I think it should be taken down as it seems incredibly misleading to the actual deck back shown in the below KS page shots. Even if it is just trying to highlight the back foil design it seems pushed too far.
If one of the decks backs is actually that dark tone of grey, sign me up! it's stunning.

RichK wrote:I asked about the gray vs white back and Roman said "Backs are white. This photo is just a low lighting to catch shine of foils."

This is the problem with people using Kickstarter these days. This is obviously not a situation where a company needs capitol to give them the boost to make their product a reality, but rather a manipulation of Kickstarter's built-in marketing reach to make a quick buck. Seriously, if you, as a company, are so tight that you don't have even the $500.00 to finance a project, you shouldn't be in business. This funding goal is a complete sham, as is the intentional artificial rarity of this deck.Azid wrote:The funding goal is just 500$ to produce 100 decks? Interesting that they need to sell only 7 decks to get this funded.
NPCC should print more then 20 of this beauties to make it cheaper and available for more people.

Couldn't have said it bettersinjin7 wrote:This is the problem with people using Kickstarter these days. This is obviously not a situation where a company needs capitol to give them the boost to make their product a reality, but rather a manipulation of Kickstarter's built-in marketing reach to make a quick buck. Seriously, if you, as a company, are so tight that you don't have even the $500.00 to finance a project, you shouldn't be in business. This funding goal is a complete sham, as is the intentional artificial rarity of this deck.Azid wrote:The funding goal is just 500$ to produce 100 decks? Interesting that they need to sell only 7 decks to get this funded.
NPCC should print more then 20 of this beauties to make it cheaper and available for more people.
I would have a lot more respect for this campaign if they produced 2000 standard dual colored foil backed cards priced at $35.00 per deck with an $8,000.00 funding goal, with 100 ultra-limited edition decks with fake jewels glued onto extra-fancy tucks available for those who love to throw money at blingy tucks.
Or even if they had the balls to stay off Kickstarter and self-fund 100 decks at the $75.00 price point and sell the decks themselves (saving the 10% KS fees) and ship them out as soon as we buy them.


That door has been open for a long time. KS projects all fit on what I call a genuine-lazy spectrum. There's everything from the actual fundraising for new and innovative products, to established producers not wanting to let go (e.g. KW), to this project, to the straight up pre-orders. It's up to each of us to decide where we draw the line, because KS sure as hell doesn't care as long as they get their cut.sms69x wrote:KS is opening the door for the lazy business man.



Roman (Noir Arts) said the band will be openable and the seal will be on the band. No seal to stop you from opening the box. Band, in theory, is recloseable. Slot A tab B kind of thing.rorschach wrote:Might be a good idea for this campaign to offer a cheaper add-on deck without all the bells and whistles?
The cards may very well be amazing, but at the rarity and price nobody is going to open the deck to appreciate them.


First of all, don't be ignorant in your statements and read carefully before you say something. Those are synthetic (!) jewels. Not fake, not imitation. SYN-THE-TIC. You can gooogle it, or read project descriptionsinjin7 wrote: I would have a lot more respect for this campaign if they produced 2000 standard dual colored foil backed cards priced at $35.00 per deck with an $8,000.00 funding goal, with 100 ultra-limited edition decks with fake jewels glued onto extra-fancy tucks available for those who love to throw money at blingy tucks.
Everybody knows that you hate everything we do. The only thing that remains a mistery to me - what is your problem? why you keep posting your "expert opinion" on subjects, you are not interested in? I personally don't give any attention to decks I don't likesms69x wrote:I would just like to add, since their decks handle very poorly, maybe this is a way for them to go... Just do limited decks that noone will use for anything other than look at, and you may get your space in the business....
Good question. Yes, we are planning to introduce more traditional deck with foiled backsrorschach wrote:Might be a good idea for this campaign to offer a cheaper add-on deck without all the bells and whistles?

First of all, I assure you I always read carefully before I make any posts here at UC. These are synthetic (!) jewels, not real, merely imitation. F-A-K-E. To me, a synthetic jewel is a fake jewel, in that neither are natural or real. If you go to Tiffany's and try to hype up the value of a SYN-THE-TIC diamond compared to a real diamond, then you'll get laughed out of the store like the ignoramus that you would be. But I'm not going to get caught up with semantics with you. If you prefer to use the term SYN-THE-TIC because it makes you feel better as opposed to the synonymous term, F-A-K-E, that's your prerogative, but it doesn't change the fact that none of your jewels are real.NoirArts wrote:First of all, don't be ignorant in your statements and read carefully before you say something. Those are synthetic (!) jewels. Not fake, not imitation. SYN-THE-TIC. You can gooogle it, or read project descriptionsinjin7 wrote: I would have a lot more respect for this campaign if they produced 2000 standard dual colored foil backed cards priced at $35.00 per deck with an $8,000.00 funding goal, with 100 ultra-limited edition decks with fake jewels glued onto extra-fancy tucks available for those who love to throw money at blingy tucks.
Second, it up to us how and how many decks to produce.
Third: this campaign is for only "ultra limited" decks. And as I stated in my previous post, it is a proof of what we are capable of. Cannot say for sure, but we have plans to produce deck with foiled backs, not that limited
If you don't like it - don't support. There are a lot of people who likes it and who will appreciate these decks in collection. Simple.

Right, "to you". For everyone else, who is analyzing information prior making any conclusions or statements - it is not.sinjin7 wrote: First of all, I assure you I always read carefully before I make any posts here at UC. These are synthetic (!) jewels, not real, merely imitation. F-A-K-E. To me, a synthetic jewel is a fake jewel, in that neither are natural or real.
Backers won't have to wait 4+months to receive these decks. We've started Kickstarter campaign so people could find these decks and support. Not because of money, but because of introduction and support. Branle Tesoro won't be produced UNLESS we gain enough supporters. That's the main idea of this project and Kickstarter overall.sinjin7 wrote:For me, it comes down to this: Why are you even on Kickstarter? Surely you don't need the $500 to get started. Why not actually produce your 100 decks first, and then sell them to your customers when they are immediately availale? This way people don't have to wait 4+ months after they pay before finally getting their decks, and you don't have to give Kickstarter their cut. When I see people or established companies (ab)using Kickstarter as a crutch when they don't have to, it makes me suspect they are more about placing their own convenience ahead of the convenience of their customers.
Users browsing this forum: BaconWise, Bing [Bot], Disenchanted_11, Google [Bot], Google Feedfetcher and 72 guests