Talk:United States Playing Card Company

Untitled

I propose we move this articel back to "The United State Playing Card Company" because that is the official name of the company (with the "the"). 68.35.52.95 19:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Aviator Article

Someone should create an Aviator article as it is one of the most cost effective playing card decks out there, with high quality and anti-cheating measures (white border and plain design). 70.111.224.85 15:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I was wondering what each of the brands were used for, perhaps the article should have a description of each brand? Thanks! Xaios 14:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Iraq's Most Wanted

Didn't this company also print the Iraq's 55 Most Wanted decks? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.42.159.11 (talk • contribs) 18:19, February 26, 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i think so: Iraq's Most Wanted Playing Cards (Authorized Edition) at amazon --Reuben Honigwachs 01:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought that Liberty Playing Card Company made those :-? Adrade 00:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

An entrepreneur, who may have been organized as the Liberty Playing Card Company, ordered the cards from the U.S. Playing Card Co., which printed them. Thus, the U.S. Playing Card Co. printed but did not distribute the cards. You may recall that there was a controversy because the distributor did not have his own design for the jokers with which the deck was printed. They were jokers of the Hoyle design, which is a trademark of the U.S. Playing Card Co. Thus, the distributor needed a license from the U.S. Playing Card Co. to distribute the cards. I believe that this issue came up at the time of the second printing, perhaps because the U.S. Playing Card Co. did the first printing without knowing that the cards would be resold. If you visit the U.S. Playing Card Co. web site, you will see that anyone can order a special edition deck of cards. The only wrinkle is that you have to order in lots of 10,000 decks. These were not, apparently, the cards actually distributed to the military personnel looking for the persons identified on the cards. Those were a limited edition handed out by the Pentagon.

Bob99 21:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Uspc.jpg

Image:Uspc.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Uspc.jpg

Image:Uspc.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Bicycle card list

Since Bicycle Playing Cards has it's own page, I think any list of decks they have produced should be presented there, if at all, instead of on the company page. It clutters the article, and is a very incomplete list without a source. I would welcome a referenced historical list of their products TabooSnafu (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

They have produced so many different decks over the years, with a steady stream of new playing card releases on an ongoing basis, that a complete list of their products is unrealistic. Gregorytopov (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Aristocrat

Why is Aristocrat listed as a discontinued brand? They still use this brand at several of the casinos I play at. Someone may wish to research this further, but I suspect only the retail version has been discontinued. Firebag237 (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You are correct. It is now a casino-sales only brand, positioned slightly less expensive than Bees, as it's a slightly thinner stock. The article has been adjusted (with reference) to account for that. oknazevad (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Games by Bicycle

I added the following. I do not work for nor have any affiliation with the company but it was deleted as spam. I feel it noteworthy as arguably the oldest game manufacturer around is now entering the modern board game market, but if you disagree please discuss here before deleting as spam.

Starting in 2019, Bicycle started a "Games by Bicycle" division to enter into the hobby board game market, with party games and light strategic games using playing-card sized cards . These include Tattoo Stories, It's Blunderful, and Shuffle Grand Prix. .

References

USPC vs USPCC

Going back and forth in edits is not going to prove valuable long-term. The United States Playing Card Company uses the abbreviation “USPC” on their own website. That qualifies as an official name. If people prefer USPCC, that’s fine, but it should not be the preferred abbreviation on the entire page. At best, it can be “USPC, also known as USPCC.”

--Louie Mantia 17:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipeida doesn't give extra credence to official names. And while that may be about article titles strictly, the spirit should be used throughout as well. oknazevad (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you very clearly acknowledged that this only applies to article names. People commonly referred to “iPod touch” the “iTouch” but that doesn’t appear on any iPod touch article. --Louie Mantia 17:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The difference is one is overwhelmingly the abbreviation used in reliable sources, while the other is a casual nickname that almost never appears in writing. oknazevad (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Here’s an article on BusinessWire, USPC’s LinkedIn page, Cartamundi’s acquisition press release, and an item on USPC’s online store that all use “USPC”. In no official capacity is USPCC used. I think this should be sufficient proof that USPC is the correct term. --Louie Mantia 17:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

My recommended solution is to change the first sentence of the article to “The United States Playing Card Company (USPC, though also commonly known as USPCC), established in 1867 as Russell, Morgan & Co. and founded in its current incarnation in 1885, is a large American producer and distributor of playing cards.)” --Louie Mantia 17:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

If you would like, we could ask for a third opinion? --Louie Mantia 17:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

You've convinced me. I like your phrasing there. oknazevad (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Radical. ❤️ Updated! --Louie Mantia 21:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

A good solution. I've often wondered about this as well. Gregorytopov (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Bicycle Playing Cards into this page. I think that the content in the Bicycle article can easily be explained in the context of USPCC, and the USPCC article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Bicycle will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Needforspeed888 (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I’m not in favor of this, as Bicycle is just one product/brand of USPC. It’s one of over a dozen brands they have, and each have their own history, and Bicycle has its own significance in that people know Bicycle separately from USPC (if they know USPC at all). Louie Mantia (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Opposed to merger: I'm also opposed to this being merged. USPCC is the parent company, and publishes many different brands of playing cards and more, including all kinds of custom decks. Effectively they are just a giant printer that specializes in playing cards. Bicycle is a well known brand in its own right, and many people will recognize it independently of knowing USPCC. Gregorytopov (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The separate article is well sourced, demonstrating independent notability, and if the material were to be merged it would overwhelm the company article, giving short shrift to both the company's history of mergers and acquisitions, and the long list of brands, many of which came into the portfolio because of said mergers. oknazevad (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Should we make a separate page for all of the discontinued brands and highlight the most popular here, or should we put them all here?

As the title says. For currently printed brands (all of which seem to be popular, and easily accessed), I think it's a no-brainer to have them listed, but for the discontinued products, I could easily add 20 more sections. I don't want to ruffle any feathers. I do however want to see this page properly sourced, filled out, and with reference images + links. There are a lot of historically printed cards that we could add under the Discontinued Brands section. I have at least 4 or 5 bricks worth of discontinued USPCC products. Monstarules (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

A referenced list of discontinued brands might be a good addition, so long as it's referenced to reliable sources (of course) and isn't full of excess trivia. Just remember that reliable sources do not include internet message boards or self-published fan websites. oknazevad (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

There aren't many good sources on antique cards, WOPC and Jim Knapp (the collector) is the only one I'm aware of. They often have the only information. USPCC and Bicycle should really release a history book. Monstarules (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, those are the sort of personal websites I was talking about. The recent Texan section you added is also in need of a copyedit to trim some of more trivial details and peacock term. I'd love to see some more additions, but we've got to be careful that it doesn't turn into a fan site. oknazevad (talk) 03:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll clean some of the sections up. I did just discover a good resource of the Texan's historical existence via. the United States Patent Office. I wonder why they knocked it out of production after 123 years. We'll probably never know. Monstarules (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)