faded spade 3.0 coming out (7 Viewers)

JMC9389 said:
I think I figured out why I don't Iike these.

They literally feel like a paper deck. There's some texture on the cars faces like a plastic card, but the backs are totally flat and pretty much have no texture at all. Very glossy feel to them. I will say that they pitch really well and aren't slippery at all, which will make a lot of folks happy. But yes, they feel like the $3 decks that can be bought on Amazon made in China.

YMMV, but even with a little bit of slickness, give me the V2 of these all day.

Right now, it's V2>V3>V1 for me. With V3's closer to V1's on the spectrum than the V2's.
Click to expand...
I'm already out, but I appreciate this feedback and I'm surprised nobody mentioned it yet. I dislike it when one side has a different finish than the other and can't stand it when one side is glossy. So it's good to know. These things used to be logged into a database . . . sad
 
JP1984 said:
I'm worried by this review...I hope I can cope with the updates. Otherwise I'll be looking for more 2.0 setups.
Click to expand...
Definitely try them out for yourself. I'm just one guy.

My mind went to these as soon as I shuffled the new ones for a bit...

Teskyer Large Print Playing Cards, Poker Size Large Index Deck of Cards, Linen Finish Surface, 2 Pack(Blue and Red), Pattern A https://a.co/d/h2O5aos
 
dmoney said:
Don't mean to thread jack, but do you like these?
Click to expand...
Not particularly. They have a pretty textured back but a very glossy face. Pretty much the reverse of what these Faded Spades are.
 
JMC9389 said:
Not particularly. They have a pretty textured back but a very glossy face. Pretty much the reverse of what these Faded Spades are.
Click to expand...
But that seems to be the norm for these cards with different finish on each side, right? Smooth face for ease of pitching, textured back for feel and grip?
I dunno, but it seems like a smooth back is counterintuitive.
 
upNdown said:
But that seems to be the norm for these cards with different finish on each side, right? Smooth face for ease of pitching, textured back for feel and grip?
I dunno, but it seems like a smooth back is counterintuitive.
Click to expand...
Agree. My favorite cards have a linen finish on the backs with a lightly textured or matte finish on the faces. It's as if Faded Spade did it backwards with the 3.0's.

The 2.0's at least had some texture on the backs and the faces. The 1.0's were just a disaster. I'll be interested to see reports on if these 3.0's bow after a long session like the 1.0's did. My gut reaction though is that the 3.0's are a step back from the 2.0's that did a lot of good things to fix the issues of the 1.0's.
 
I just got my two poker setups today and other than the same boring card backs, they are exactly what I was hoping for. The 3.0 are much easier to bridge in a shuffle where the 2.0's were very difficult. The cards are less prone to slide off the top of the deck. The whiter stock and slightly clearer graphics on the paint cards are also positives. Better than the 2.0's imo.
20220914_152453.jpg
 
If anyone wants to trade a 4C set for a non-4C bridge set, PM me.
 
I don’t know what my expectations were? But I don’t hate them. Index size and artwork are great ( I ordered the bridge/standard index ). Cards are just a hair slick, not too stiff? I’ll get them into play and see how they do.
 
OK I have been playing with these for a couple of hours at my desk, alongside the 2.0s and some new Desjgn's as well. I really like them, but then I was a huge fan of the 2.0.

My thoughts (which match some previous posts)...

- Faces are whiter and brighter than the 2.0 and they look great.
- Backs and faces are not as textured as 2.0, but they feel very similar to my Design setup.
- "Slightly" more flexible, thinner and slippery than the 2.0 but I really have to concentrate to notice any difference. Hard to quantify, give these to any normal human being and they wouldn't even notice I expect. If you liked the 2.0 you will like these too, prob isn't enough to convince @Eriks to try them out though. They handle like Desjgn's do in my opinion, so based on the Redneck database, they've gone from 12 (stiff) - 14 (medium).
- The boxes stink of adhesive! But. it hasn't transferred to the cards themselves due to the wrapper. I wonder if this will slowly happen once they are used. I quite like the smell! The Design's absolutely stink of burnt plastic, but it never bothers me when we are using them.
 
JP1984 said:
OK I have been playing with these for a couple of hours at my desk, alongside the 2.0s and some new Desjgn's as well. I really like them, but then I was a huge fan of the 2.0.

My thoughts (which match some previous posts)...

- Faces are whiter and brighter than the 2.0 and they look great.
- Backs and faces are not as textured as 2.0, but they feel very similar to my Design setup.
- "Slightly" more flexible, thinner and slippery than the 2.0 but I really have to concentrate to notice any difference. Hard to quantify, give these to any normal human being and they wouldn't even notice I expect. If you liked the 2.0 you will like these too, prob isn't enough to convince @Eriks to try them out though. They handle like Desjgn's do in my opinion, so based on the Redneck database, they've gone from 12 (stiff) - 14 (medium).
- The boxes stink of adhesive! But. it hasn't transferred to the cards themselves due to the wrapper. I wonder if this will slowly happen once they are used. I quite like the smell! The Design's absolutely stink of burnt plastic, but it never bothers me when we are using them.
Click to expand...
Good review! I think I agree with most or all of that except I think they're slightly less slippery than the 2.0. Thanks!
 
buffalojim said:
Good review! I think I agree with most or all of that except I think they're slightly less slippery than the 2.0. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Yeah, after a while I didn't know if I was just imagining the difference in terms of how slippery they are...it's not a dramatic difference either way.
 
I think one thing this thread proves is that evaluating cards are a pretty subjective thing. Many of us are reporting slightly contradictory things! I played around with them some more. In addition to what I said previously:
  1. The 3.0 seem a hair thicker than the 2.0. If I remove one card from the 3.0 deck and squeeze both decks down, they seem identical in height.
  2. The 3.0 have more texture on the faces than the 2.0. I think they have slightly more texture on the back also, but that's debatable.
  3. The 3.0 are whiter, a big improvement over the grey 2.0, but they are also shinier. They definitely reflect more light, more glare.
  4. I still do not feel any difference in the flex. They seem to be just as stiff as the old ones. Hard to really tell until you actually play with them.
  5. I do like the more squared corners of the 3.0
IMG_20220914_135057827.jpg
 
I just checked and this must be poker size specific @Jake14mw ?

When I hold 2.0 and 3.0 Bridge size together, the corners are identical. They have given the poker size the same "1" as the bridge size as well by the looks of it. Much better IMO.
 
JP1984 said:
I just checked and this must be poker size specific @Jake14mw ?

When I hold 2.0 and 3.0 Bridge size together, the corners are identical. They have given the poker size the same "1" as the bridge size as well by the looks of it. Much better IMO.
Click to expand...
Yes, I am comparing the poker size. I don't have any Faded Spade bridge size. Maybe it's possible that poker vs. bridge accounts for some of the other differences too. Can anyone who has poker and bridge report if they see any differences?
 
Really hoping that I have these in hand and tested before my home game at the end of the month....
 
All of my sets came today at one time. Poker Sized with both color options. Out of the box they are fure sure more flexible than the 2.0's. Gonna play with them for the next 5+hrs and will follow up with some player thoughts later...so far my shuffletech loves them.
 
krafticus said:
Used them this weekend, and I thought they were great. Easy to shuffle, easy to deal, and not too slippery. I’d put them in my top 3 setups.
Click to expand...
We also got to break in some 3.0's over the weekend. I second everything you said krafticus!!! I am still waiting on my red and black decks to show up though.
 
For anyone who ordered the 4 color decks: What colors are the backs? The website is confusing to me. :unsure: :LOL: :laugh:
 
Saoliver said:
For anyone who ordered the 4 color decks: What colors are the backs? The website is confusing to me. :unsure: :LOL: :laugh:
Click to expand...
Looks like red and blue to these eyes from the picture, but those are the 2.0 being advertised as the 3.0 for sale. So, umm, yeah...
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

doublebooyah85
Wanted Faded Spade Narrow Green/Purple. Kems available via trade.
Replies
16
Views
413
doublebooyah85
doublebooyah85
Split
Demystifying Faded Spade 3.0
2
Replies
57
Views
4K
grandmeme
grandmeme
F
Not Mine Faded Spade 3.0 Sale - Bridge Size
Replies
4
Views
371
grandmeme
grandmeme
Taghkanic
Wanted Faded Spade 4-color poker sized setup(s)
Replies
2
Views
169
Taghkanic
Taghkanic
S
Faded Spade Table Mat
Replies
16
Views
768
NopalCoastal
NopalCoastal
Back
Top Bottom