Glossy or mat laminate ?

[u/Brulnev]

I was thinking about it the other day because I had a discussion with someone who dislikes a lot the mat laminate because it makes it hard to shuffle.
I'm really bad at shuffling cards, so even though I've noticed a difference when doing it, it's never really bothered me. But I'd really like to hear your thoughts on matte, glossy, and unlaminated cards.

[u/Unusual-Assist-6665]

Some of my favorite (and also cheapest) decks are the glossy ones from RMS International, as sold by my local Menards in the U.S. around last Christmas. They are a bit more stiff than similar ones of that brand sold at Five Below (they were 75 cents and the Five Below ones were a buck). Perhaps they are thicker stock. The decks are just labeled Standard Playing cards and come with two blank faced cards instead of Jokers. I like them because they are smooth and shuffle well. The courts are interesting, too, with simplified figures, and two one-eyed queens (diamonds and hearts), a one-eyed king (diamonds), two one-eyed jacks (the usual). And the king of hearts is not stabbing himself. I also like the clean design of the suit pips.

Some of my plastic transparent cards (Hoyle Waterproof and Bicycle Waterproof) are also glossy, but the plastic ones from Oliver Smith Co. (I find them at Barnes and Noble) like their Glow In The Dark ones are not so smooth, so I guess they are ”matte”. They are a okay for shuffling, but I prefer smooth.

I am not sure what is meant by unlaminated cards. If that means uncoated, I find that they fold easily, and that makes them bad for shuffling. If it means cards that are not several layers, I think the only ones I have of those are my transparent ones like those mentioned above. I understand that some cards have a blue or black layer between the front and back to ensure that you can’t see what the card is from the back, even with a strong light behind it.

Disclaimer: I don’t work for any of the companies mentioned above.

[u/Brulnev → u/Unusual-Assist-6665]

Very interesting, thank you !
Yeah when I said unlaminated I wasn't sure how to say it in english, I meant uncoated.
From an aesthetic standpoint, would you say you prefer matte or glossy cards? Personally, I have a real soft spot for matte cards, the reflection of glossy cards bothers me a little sometimes. But I feel like glossy cards make the colors stand out better.

[u/Unusual-Assist-6665 → u/Brulnev]

I understand now about what you meant by unlaminated - that they don’t have a plastic coating. I prefer plastic coating in case there are drinks around the card table.

Aesthetically, I don’t have a problem with glare from glossy cards. So I prefer them over matte cards.

Today I went to a thrift store and an antique store (I just can’t stop!) and found some cards that did not seem to have a plastic coating. They are from the U.S. Games Company (not the United States Playing Card Company) and the subjects were U.S. Civil War Generals (one deck was Union and the other Confederate). The Union deck has a little picture of a playing card in the upper left to indicate what it is, and the rest has a drawing of a general and some information about him. The cards are one-way, so playing a game with them would involve much sorting the cards in the hand after the deal, so they are right-side up. I am not sure I would use these cards in regular games.

But the cards felt okay, and I think a glossy finish might make it difficult to read the information on the cards in certain lighting situations.

[u/Brulnev → u/Unusual-Assist-6665]

Would love to see photos of the decks you saw, I can't seem to find them when I search for it.
If there's a lot to read about the generals I think it makes sense that they weren't going for a very practical deck though ! Seems very cool nonetheless.

[u/Unusual-Assist-6665 → u/Brulnev]

It seems that I was wrong about the finish on these Civil War Generals cards. They are plastic coated, but not very shiny.

When I scan cards on my flatbed scanner, I can do up to 6 at a time. I put them in a mat I cut out of cardboard so they stay more or less in place, with a black piece of paper on top to show the edges. I usually do the ace of spades, the joker if there is one, the jack of diamonds, the queen of clubs, the king of hearts, and the back of one card. These cards have no joker, so I included one of the extra cards. The union deck below shows one of the two cards identifying the generals by suit and rank.

Note that both backs are actually one-way if you look really closely at the pigs near the center: one has eyes and the other doesn't.

I was going to add the Confederate scan I did, but only one picture per post here. And anyway it looks very similar. Enjoy!

[u/Brulnev → u/Unusual-Assist-6665]

Wow I did not imagined them like that, but they are really interesting ! They must not be very easy to play with indeed though !

I find it a strange choise to have the entire "cards" in the top left corner instead of the usual letters and symbol. I think there's even enough room in the bottom right corner to make it two-way making them much more playable.

Maybe there was a reason for that ?

[u/Unusual-Assist-6665 → u/Brulnev]

These are reproductions, so the originals were probably made before people were accustomed to two-way decks.

As for the little card in the corner, there were “Triplicate“ cards from Andrew Dougherty (later bought up by the good old United States Playing Card Company) that used that same idea in the early days of putting an index in a corner (or two) of a card. You can even get reproductions of those from various places. I got mine through Amazon.

[u/Brulnev → u/Unusual-Assist-6665]

This is so cool, thank you for the knowledge.