Blue Cohort Vintage Casino Playing Cards
NOTE: Despite the controversy, Ellusionist did not deduct any cards from the photos of Blue Cohorts vs Red Cohorts. The photographs were taken by a freelance photographer (who does not know magic / care about playing card stock) ... The difference in Blue Cohorts is about 6 cards thinner than the original B9 (on Red Cohorts), but the perspective in which the decks were photographed made the difference look far bigger. We apologize if you thought this was mis-leading, this was not our intention. The cards ARE thin, beautiful, durable and simply don't need that photo to prove their worth. We love them and we know you will too.
Our favorite marked deck is finally available in BLUE.
This vintage casino style deck was designed with simplicity in mind. From our classic court cards to the nostalgic back design, Cohorts were engineered to look unassuming on the card table or in the hands of a master card mechanic.
Each deck comes with 52 cards, 2 jokers, 1 alternate color double-backer and a duplicate Queen of spades (for obvious magical reasons).
Hidden within the lines of the intricate back design are markings undetectable to the untrained eye. Easily readable for any magician, card mechanic or mentalist out there.
Printed on our brand new luxury pressed E7 stock in a vibrant blue, this is the crushed stock deck you’ve been waiting for. We worked hand-in-hand with Cartamundi to find an answer to ‘Bicycle Crushed' and boy did we deliver!
As an Ellusionist exclusive this is the only place you can get the thinner-stock cards produced with a durable Cartamundi finish.(We have a 6 month exclusive)
People often comment on Cartamundi's stock... "Their stock would be perfect if it was just a bit thinner" ... NOW IT IS.
This is one deck that you need to feel to believe.
Get your Blue Cohorts NOW.
WilliamAs for the difference in thickness photo ... If you look closely it isn't JUST that the blue deck is closer to the camera it is ALSO the angle/perspective of the image and what is misleading is the arrows that suggest the difference at the TOP of the decks is the difference in TOTAL height. But ... look at the bottom of the decks. The bottom of the Blue deck is lower but that isn't pointed out in the description.
So ... if you subtract the difference at the BOTTOM from the difference at the TOP of the decks you'll get a true picture [pun intended] of the "net" difference.
SummaryDeceptive advertising, the deck isn't actually that thin.
SummaryVery disappointed. The difference in thickness is not nearly as much as suggested by the image.