Faded Spade 2.0 (1 Viewer)

[Zooks64]

I just got an email with a pre-order deal for the next version of Faded Spade cards.

"Upgrade to Faded Spade 2.0! We’ve made minor, yet important, changes to our original cards based on objective feedback from our great customers & poker industry partners."

Based on the recommendations of this forum, I've been buying bridge sized cards for my home game. So far no complaints.

But, I did buy 2 setups of the OG Faded Spade poker cards. No one liked them. I thought the graphics were nice but the card stock was too thin and the cards were prone to flashing when dealt.

I'm in for one setup of the bridge size 2.0 version. Hopefully they will be significantly better than the 1.0 version.

 

[Old State]

They are pretty cryptic about what the change is. If they truly are taking feedback into consideration they need a drastic change in the card stock. They are absurdly stiff to the point where they are unplayable.

I’m a card junking and own a sample of practically every brand of card made. My guys usually prefer one brand to another but Faded Spade is the only brand that was universally not liked. They didn’t make two trips around the table. Stiffest cards x4 on the market. The worst part is they don’t even have looks going for them. Very tacky design IMO. The back design is nice though.

Oh and the box was terrible. Can’t believe they made it to production. These 2.0s better be a whole lot better feeling. I don’t know how they are in business. I wish Desjgn had the marketing they have.

 

[v1pe]

FYI, I emailed them and asked for more specifics on the differences. Here is the reply I got:

.
Lane, thanks for being a customer and part of our story. The differentiation details are in the product description, and we combined all the best qualities of our original card types into one new version. There aren't any aesthetic changes, but 2.0 are slightly thinner with a different balance of strength and flexibility. They also have an updated textured finish for improved hand shuffling and dealing. We appreciate your business.

- Team Faded Spade

 

[Old State]

Still vague. I’ll wait until someone else tries them this time. Good news is they can only improve

 

[TheBigTater]

The first 2 versions (poker & bridge size) were not just terrible but unusable, I doubt I'll be trying another version but like @Old State said, they can only improve.

 

[mike32]

I wouldn’t call them unusable but I don’t really care for them. We used them twice in the last couple weeks. A friend brought a setup to my house and halfway through the tournament we switched to Copags and everyone was happy we did.

 

[v1pe]

I really like the look of the FS v1 cards, and am very interested to try out a 4 color deck in my game...however I really didn't like the card finish (too slick) and the thickness (too thick). Looks like they have moved in the right direction on v2, so I'm going to give it a try.

 

[jazzV3]

I see them in use on TV in some of the recent tournament broadcasts. Wonder if they are using the 2.0 version.
We tried them and to me they felt thick, not thin (poker size).

I don't recall them being crazy stiff. Some DaVinci's I have qualify for some of the stiffest cards I've used.

Looking forward to some reviews even though I surely don't "need" another deck.
We don't use the KK405 method of new decks for each game.

Double stacked...

 

[rocollis]

I have a setup of the bridge size and another of the four color. I don't mind them. Although the improvements of a textured finish and less thick would go a long way for them. I'm anxious to try the 2.0 version.

 

[Old State]

The thickness isn’t the issue. It’s the flexibility....or lack there of.

 

[v1pe]

The thickness isn’t the issue. It’s the flexibility....or lack there of.

There ought to be a correlation between thickness and stiffness though.

 

[Trihonda]

... but the card stock was too thin

Said no one ever... who has handled these. .

 

[Trihonda]

The thickness isn’t the issue. It’s the flexibility....or lack there of.

These were ridiculous thick. It was noticeablely harder to hold these in my grip for longer periods of time. Stuff too, but the thickness was definitely an issue. I took a pic of these compared to a deck of Modiano PAs and the FS were much taller.

 

[Old State]

I was trusting the manufacturers claims they were inline with Kems. I never measured them.

Soooo, they suck in two ways.

 

[jazzV3]

Less so suck, but definately different. Some players liked them. They said they liked the feel. They kind of feel "soft".

 

[Zooks64]

Said no one ever... who has handled these. .

You are totally correct. I was confusing these with something else. These are very thick.

I'm still willing to give the 2.0 version a try.

I've switched my preference to the bridge size so that will be another change, too. Right now we're using Kem and Copag decks for my home game. I'll spring these on them and report back.

 

[Trihonda]

In all fairness Zooks, I really like the design of these cards. I wanted to like these. They’re not horrible to handle, but the thickness makes them low on my list of cards to put into play.

 

[Old State]

Less so suck, but definately different. Some players liked them. They said they liked the feel. They kind of feel "soft".

Huh? Did they have something to compare them to? Because I have so many setups I usually mix in a few during a game. Put Kems in rotation with some Faded Spade and see if they still think they feel soft. I’d be curious.

These are without a doubt the stiffest card manufactured. The stiffest cards I had found prior are Gemaco Superflex (ironic isn’t it?) . The Superflex are stiff compared to others but totally playable. Not so for the FS IMO. FS are closer to cut cards in stiffness than they are to say Fournier.

If you do a casino shuffle like I do they are very close to unusable. I don’t know how anyone would pick that card stock for production but they claim they picked it to aid in card shufflers reliability....despite the fact that Kems are probably 90% of what has ever been run through casino shufflers and they are the softest feeling cards made. Total opposite side of the spectrum.

I can’t imagine they didn’t get a ton of complaints from dealers who are hand shuffling them...say at tournament tables. If I was a dealer and was handed FS to shuffle by hand I would complain to the Union.

 

[friarlawless]

I'm a little late to this thread but I'm glad to hear I wasn't the only one who was disappointed in Faded Spade v1.0. I bought a bridge size pair, and as soon as I opened them I knew it was a mistake. Much too smooth, they have a tendency to stick together when fanning, and shuffling is awkward and clumpy. Strangely thick as well. I actually did like the back design, but the royalty was "meh." Looks like something I'd see in a modern board game or comic book.

I have pre-ordered a Poker size pair of 2.0s, and I'm interested to see what the new "textured finish" they're advertising feels like. I'll be posting a video on YouTube comparing the two once they come in.

 

[friarlawless]

So I got my 2.0 set in the mail today, and I'm editing an unboxing video on it. Handbrake is giving me crap though so I thought I'd give my initial thoughts right now.

Texture! The 1.0 deck I had was very slick and the cards stuck together a lot. I can say that Faded Spade has addressed...one of those complaints. There's a very rough texture on the cards, something akin to a Modiano deck. Unfortunately the cards still stick together - at least in the first hour or two that I've played with them. They may loosen up a bit with wear.

The cards are thick - thicker than my Bicycle Prestige Dura-Flex but the same size card in the cut. The cards are pretty darned stiff. Easily one of the stiffest decks I have, so just a note if you like more pliability.

They still have that kind of hard to open cardboard box as the 1.0s- this one is just a sort of navy blue instead of black. Overall the cards don't feel as slick or cheap to me as the 1.0s, which is good. I hope they get less sticky as they're shuffled.

 

[allforcharity]

I quite surprised that anybody is giving 2.0 the time of day, considering the almost unanimous negativity of the posts reviewing the 1.0. We must be a more forgiving bunch than I otherwise thought.

 

[Old State]

So I got my 2.0 set in the mail today, and I'm editing an unboxing video on it. Handbrake is giving me crap though so I thought I'd give my initial thoughts right now.

Texture! The 1.0 deck I had was very slick and the cards stuck together a lot. I can say that Faded Spade has addressed...one of those complaints. There's a very rough texture on the cards, something akin to a Modiano deck. Unfortunately the cards still stick together - at least in the first hour or two that I've played with them. They may loosen up a bit with wear.

The cards are thick - thicker than my Bicycle Prestige Dura-Flex but the same size card in the cut. The cards are pretty darned stiff. Easily one of the stiffest decks I have, so just a note if you like more pliability.

They still have that kind of hard to open cardboard box as the 1.0s- this one is just a sort of navy blue instead of black. Overall the cards don't feel as slick or cheap to me as the 1.0s, which is good. I hope they get less sticky as they're shuffled.

The stiffness is a no go for me if they didn’t address it. They are unplayable for me. Ive samples almost every plastic card made and these are the only ones I would say that about. Did they at least put a divider in the box tall enough to keep the cards from each deck from moving over?

They seemed to put all their eggs in one basket with the stiffness aim exclusively at the casino market. Thanks for buying these and reviewing them. Sounds like these cards are a total flop

 

[TheBigTater]

The stiffness was the overall biggest complaint with the 1.0 decks. Guess the autoshuffle machines like stiff cards, probably causes less jams. It sound like that is their target audience, not people at self dealt games that actually shuffle and deal.

Only thing I can say I liked about any of them was the back design. And unless I hear a lot of fantastic reviews of the 2.0's I'm out on anymore Faded Spades.

 

[justsomedude]

The stiffness was the overall biggest complaint with the 1.0 decks. Guess the autoshuffle machines like stiff cards, probably causes less jams. It sound like that is their target audience, not people at self dealt games that actually shuffle and deal.

Only thing I can say I liked about any of them was the back design. And unless I hear a lot of fantastic reviews of the 2.0's I'm out on anymore Faded Spades.

+1 loved the back design... but didn't like the thickness and/or stiffness. Doubt I'll ever buy another Faded Spade setup again.

 

[friarlawless]

Did they at least put a divider in the box tall enough to keep the cards from each deck from moving over?

Unfortunately, no. Same problem with the cards sliding over left and right I'm afraid. I did some intense washing and shuffling and they're a lot less sticky now - but no less stiff. I'm going to be hitting the Ibuprofen tonight. As others have said, these don't seem to be targeted at human hands for shuffling.

 

[Old State]

Unfortunately, no. Same problem with the cards sliding over left and right I'm afraid. I did some intense washing and shuffling and they're a lot less sticky now - but no less stiff. I'm going to be hitting the Ibuprofen tonight. As others have said, these don't seem to be targeted at human hands for shuffling.

Crazy. They responded to me a few months ago and said they were going to fix the box going forward.
Also,I think, if memory serves me, the first poker and bridge cards were a bit different to start. (n) :thumbsdown:

Either way playability doesn’t seem to be a concern of the company. All the marketing and media posts are about how they are being used at this tournament or that tournament. Little to nothing about the product itself other than the face design. I think they are self hyping these things as I’m suspicious that many major casinos will opt for them in AC or Vegas, etc. I imagine many of those tournaments were given the cards.

You would think they would get on a this forum or some poker related one. Every forum I read for my hobbies and other things have company representatives that frequent them.

May as well keep them as they may be collectible one day

 

[rocollis]

Did they at least put a divider in the box tall enough to keep the cards from each deck from moving over?

This was one of the things they were going to address. The 2.0 box is taller than the 1.0 box and the divider is taller as well. I would say they addressed it, and fixed it.
The texture they added helps a lot. They were also enlarging the size of the suits/pips to make them easier to read, which they did. They are still thick as hell. I don't mind the thickness when it comes to shuffling, dealing, reading your cards, but it is a royal pain in the ass when the cards are spread around the table (washed) and you try to bring them all back into the deck. The thickness keeps them from being able to slide on top of one another. This is my biggest complaint with them.

 

[dmalhi1]

So I own a box of the 1.0 poker and the 1.0 4-color poker Faded Spade cards. The 1.0 Poker are definitely stiff and thick cards while the 4-color decks are much thinner and easier to flex. Oddly enough, my group enjoyed using the thick and stiff cards but I preferred the 4-color thinner ones. The rest of the group was definitely thrown off by the non-conventional approach of displaying 4 different colors for the the suits though. That being said, I have ordered a couple decks of the 2.0 bridge sized cards to give them a try as well.

 

[Highli99]

I have a 1.0 deck and asked Santa for a 2.0.

I like mixing up decks. If nothing else is makes my players appreciate the nicer ones when I put them in play.

 

[dmalhi1]

If nothing else is makes my players appreciate the nicer ones when I put them in play.

I have actually contemplated bringing dice chips and cheap paper cards to the next poker night to see if it phases my group at all.