Need good plastic cards

[petp_the_greek]

i bought some kem arrows and after 3 weeks of normal use about 10 of the cards had tears on the sides. i sent them into kem (as per their replacement guarantee) and never got a new deck. time to try copag.

[TrvChBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ask your friend Jason to make these in bridge size and to go back to a standard pip layout.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the point? Then they'd be like all the other cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the artistic pip placements are not for everyone, but I play with them weekly in a game with a lot of new players and no serious complaints. After a few hands people adjust.

[WaywardAce]

I went from Bicycle plastic coated to Copags about 2 years ago. I have no issues whatsoever with Copags. People always say that copags are an alternative to Kems as if Kems set the bar for plastic cards. With me it's more like if I can't get a hold of Copags, I'll settle for Kems. I hear that Copags tend to fade over time ..... I haven't had that problem as of yet.

[Mr.Playwell]

I'm surprised so many people here are claiming that KEMs are the best. I think that used to be true, but they've gone downhill while at the same time other card companies have offered better-and-better cards and lots of options not available from KEM.

Dal Negro and Modiano are more paper like, as in they are thicker and have more texture. I suppose that if your hands are too week to turn a doornob then those cards might be hard to shuffle. I can't personally imagine a deck of plastic cards being hard to shuffle because they are too thick. These companies have also recently offered acetate cards. The actete cards from these manufacturers are the new cadillac of poker cards IMHO.

Desjgn cards- I recently played in a home game where these were used. I had heard of them, but never gave them much thought. Well I bought some after I played with them because I was very surprised by how good they felt and more than that how well they handled.

I never once got confused because of the pip layout.

They are a tad slick for my taste, but the slick texture didn't translate to slippery cards, so I can forgive them for that.

They also offer a veriety of colors that I like very much.

For me, I like very stiff, thick, heavily-textured cards, and you can't get any better than Dal Negro in that regard (with Madiano being in the same category). But if the question is, "I'm looking for good plastic cards," I think you should try Desjgn. They handle so well and meet at a nice middle ground between the flimsy KEMs and Copags, and the stiff Dal Negro and Modianos.

[Mr.Playwell]

I forgot to add that the desjgn cards have the best looking picture card artwork of any cards I've ever seen.

[Bossman9]

Can someone please explain what exactly the big difference in the pip layout is? Not sure why people are concerned about it...I think I may give them a try, although I would prefer bridge size...

Thanks

[OutOfCrown]

The Desjgn 4 has the pips in a dense straight line, just like the 3, whereas a standard 4 has the pips arranged on the corner of a square. Several of the other arrangements are different too (the 8, 9, and 10 if I remember right) but for me the 4 is the worst one.

You may be surprised how many people are used to seeing a "bunch" of pips in a straight line and "knowing" that that is a trey. For me personally (but apparently not for others) this is a big deal. It makes the board difficult to scan quickly and it really messes with my subconcious pattern matching which has apparently become auto-trained to recognize the pip patterns.

It's especially bad when the dealer is flipping over the river and there's that moment before you can read the numeral but can easily see the pips.

[desjgn]

Thanks for the comments and opinions on Desjgn Playing Cards. I am not meaning to thread-jack here with this post.

It is true that the pip patterns will not be for everyone, but out of all of the feedback I've received since Desjgns were introduced the majority has been very positive and many have said that like the pip patterns and really hasn't affected one way or another their play.

During my design process and information gathering, I was surprised to find there are 3 catagories of poker players and how they view their community cards:

1 - Pip Readers: Those that know their rank of card by glancing at the pip patterns.
2 - Index Glancers: Those that simply view the index. (I am one of them and I am finding more and more players are in this category than the first.)
3 - Pip Counters: Those that count the # of pips on the card. (There are a few of these players out there!)

OutofCrown your points are valid and appreciated. I am currently reviewing feedback on the 3 and 4 over the many months and weighing the positives vs. negatives.

Best regards,
Jason
Desjgn Playing Cards
www.classicplayingcards.com

[OutOfCrown]

I am but one voice, and if I'm in the significant minority ... well, the market will eventually sort that all out.

I will say this though... prior to seeing these cards, if you *asked* me whether I was a pip reader or an index reader, I would have said index reader and would have been hard pressed to even tell you what the pip patterns were for the various cards.

I didn't realize how built-in the pattern recognition was until I saw a different set of pip patterns and kept mistaking the 4 for a 3. I wonder how many of the "index readers" you asked would discover they were actually pip recognizers when faced with a real game situation.

[Notorious_JC]

Why are you Muppets playing a 3 or 4 in the first place? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Desjgn cards are outstanding!

JC