When I was growing up, if you did not use a deck of cards with a back design that was commonly seen or used by the general public, people just assumed the deck was a "trick deck" .
However just looking at all the decks of cards produced for magic today, all the creative back designs and custom printing, do we no longer need to worry about people thinking the magic is happening because of this odd looking back design?

Are there any decks that do not raise the eye brows? For instance, maybe a deck with your picture or logo is easier for them to look past as it is makes sense it is promotional?

When I was in Japan, I asked several if they ever saw the Rider back Bikes I was using and they said "no". So did my Bicycle deck look just as tricky to them as if I was using some fancy printed deck they never saw in the States?

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the reason all these gaff were bad to match Rider backs was because it was to match the more popular and most used back design in the US?

With all the decks available in dollar stores and elsewhere and all the limited addition decks USPC have been putting out in the stores, coupled with all the decks produced by and for magicians, should we just assume the back design does not raise suspicion as it once did?

The back design actually has nothing to do with if spectators suspect a gaffed deck or not. If they are ones to suspect that the magician is using trick cards they are going to suspect even the most popular brand of playing cards. This question has always been a moot question and always well be.

It doesn't matter what brand you use. Those types that question the deck or a few cards always will.

I always try to BORROW a deck. The back pattern doesn't really matter EXCEPT: 1) There may be One Way possibilities to consider, and 2) You may be limited to your effects if the cards do not have white borders.

A layman is much more astonished when you use THEIR deck or a deck they have gifted you.

Of course, if you find they have a deck you use often, i.e. Red Bikes, you may be able to do further miracles with a d**k s****h.

Borrow a deck? LOL that is so rare in my experience unless speaking of a house party.

Exactly. Borrowing a deck in a casual setting is great, but you can't do that on a corporate or restaurant gig.

As part of your contract with the group that is hiring you, you can ask your host to bring a couple of unopened decks of cards, according to your specifications. (For example, one red-backed Bicycle deck and one blue-backed Bicycle deck.) Harry Lorayne has been doing this for many years. Also, you should bring a couple of unopened decks with you, just in case.

This doesn't make sense for all situations, but it can be very effective under the right circumstances.

Unless there're bridge size Aviators.

Not sure how important back design is, given that you can f***e the 8C and then show the spec an 8S, and they are stunned that you found their card...? ALthough I do have a habit of underestimating people. More fool me!

If you use black tiger your deck will look very tricky...

Soon or late some spec will think that you use a trick deck. That's why I always let them suffle it and have a quick look at it.

In Belgium bikes are not common at all so if we use phoenix, bikes or tally ho there is no difference.

Borrowing a deck is awesome, usually have 4 or 5 solid crimps to use too lol I try to get a borrowed deck as often as possible, or have the host buy a deck of cards before I arrive, and ask them for it during or before the show, for all to see.

I don't think back designs matter anymore, thanks to Bicycle, printing and selling designs in general stores. I remember when tally ho was uncommon lol

It still matters I think because of all the extra procedure needed to convince the audience it's a normal deck. More than that, the procedure needed to convince audiences the deck isn't marked just isn't practical (riffle testing is not common knowledge) and even if it isn't a solution, it's a bad idea to give the audience any room to say 'of course he couldn't do that with just any deck'. That being said, I think it's only a problem when using incredibly abnormal cards. Deck one, Rebels, Arcane, Artifice, and other bizarre looking nonsense put out by T11 and Ellusionist all imply the kind of solutions spectators can easily fall back on. If the deck uses a one color design (no fading, and prefferably red or blue) with white borders it doesn't matter a whole lot. Bizarre decks also eliminate mem deck, si stebbins, or any other method which doesn't allow the spectator to fully shuffle the cards. It might make sense if one has an almost fairy tale style, where one hopes to give the audience a magic aesthetic as well, then some bizarre decks might make sense. But it still forces one to choose effects which can't even in the slightest vague sense be explained with 'it's a clever gimmick'. My friend once bought me the metallic fan back tally-ho deck for my birthday put out by T11. Later I showed him OoTW, it seemed nice to show him that I liked using the deck, and he, despite ordering it himself, later told me 'I didn't realize I bought you a trick deck'. I did it for him again with a normal deck, letting him shuffle it and all, to show him that it wasn't a gimmick, but that experience has made me weary of bizarre decks. Such is my 2 cents, sorry for the rant.

I perform with "custom" decks as put out by Ellusionist quite often and very rarely have anybody think it's a trick deck, I think it matters a lot how you handle them and that they at least appear shuffled.

but also, think about this. where do people get the idea that trick decks have weird backs? those cheep trick decks available at any dollar general and in all "magic sets" you get as a kid. but how often does somebody pick up a deck of those and go "wow, what a strange looking back"? instead they pick up the cards and think "look at these cheep pieces of junk, clearly they're trick cards".

it doesn't matter what the back of the cards look like, only that they look like a quality deck of cards.

Non-magicians aren't aware that theory 11 and dan & dave are putting out new deck designs hourly. bycicle (rider) backs are still the default 'normal card' for most people even if they don't know exactly what they are. the maiden and mandolin are close enough to pass for the same. maybe no-border bees can add legitimacy to a gambling demonstration, and tally-hos don't have the novelty, hokey look of lots of cards. but if you pull out a black-backed deck with odd-looking negative images, non-magicians will at least register that this is something other than their default assumption of what a 'regular deck of cards' is, and from there it's a small leap to assuming the deck is somehow rigged. that there are far more rigged rider decks in service is irrelevant, because non-magicians don't know that.

Back design has always been a big issue, at times I see why.

I work with teenagers at my job. No matter what, it doesn't matter if its a new patient or one that's been there for a while, but they suspect its a trick deck no matter what kind of deck I use, even if it is a deck from the facility which all look the same. Teenagers are just a tough crowd, I have been around them for years. I often use Aristocrats and people often ask if its a special deck if they are asking the common question,"How the heck did you do that?".

Now going around the bars, in my experience, half the people are well-versed in the trick deck they have seen from local fairs or their nephews have had them for a gift.

I would never do a gaffed trick with a custom deck, that's just my safety net. People always say that it's your character and if you give off the right character that they will not care, I find that wrong. When people are even having fun and they are fooled they are still going to wonder if its a trick deck, not all the time but it does happen.

It's very ignorant to underestimate a spectator's intelligence.

Take in mind that spectators don't always suspect a trick deck, but it does happen and for safety and prevention I don't do gaffed effect with a gaffed deck. I might fold in and do it one day.

I went to Seattle's Comic-Com last year and used a T11 Sentinel Deck, I wanted to make use out of them, the entire time. That's 3 days, there were no questions asked,

Here is a question to ask yourself.

Would you rather do an invisible deck with a rider back or a custom deck?

+ A Gazillion -- those who have ears to hear, let them hear.

When you ask to borrow a deck of cards while in someone's home most often they will pull out a deck of bridge sized cards with cats or Jack Daniels on the back. So even Bicycle decks aren't as standard in non magicians homes as some magicians like to think.

In the UK Bicycles are only standard amongst magicians. I don't think I've ever met a layman with a pack of bikes. Bridge sized waddingtons used to be the standard here but these days people just seem to have cheap decks from Tesco etc. And yes I am regularly asked if my bikes are special magic cards..

I always use bikes as they seem to be the design that most people associate with normal cards. But I can't ever remember seeing them for sale in a shop in Australia, until Costco opened last year. So I figure that I could use Tally-Ho's, Bee,s in fact anything with a red or blue back design that isn't too "fancy" and no-one would notice. In fact, I have never had a spectator ask if they were trick cards, but then I think routining is important in reducing challenges before they occur to the spectators.

From memory this discussion came up once before. It's one that interests me because, as Mark_Chandaue said, people in the UK aren't aware of Bicycle that much. For us, there's no set popular brand (heck, very few if my friends even have regular poker sized decks lying around at all, let alone a brand of cards).

As for the worry of whether a deck is a trick deck or not I'll basically rehash what I said last time. In the back of Scams and Fantasies with cards Darwin Ortiz has an essay regarding the use and display of skill in magic. For part of the essay he talks about using displays of skill as a form of psychological misdirection. The basic idea is that by showing your "sleight of hand credentials" as he puts it, the audience will assume the method you're using is skill based rather than any trick decks or gaffs. Although he suggests the idea to cover self working methodology or gaffs it would be easy to do the same to exclude any assumption of a trick deck. Opening with something that shows you're skilful (without showing off of course) should prevent the audience from ever thinking you might be using a trick deck.

Actually, why are we so concerned about weither or not the spectators think it's a trick deck?

Think about it for a minute, everybody knows about slieght of hand. Or that is, everybody knows the TERM slieght of hand. It's as common an explanation among spectators as is "trick deck", maybe even more common at this point. They don't know what the slieght of hand is, just as they have no idea as to how the trick deck would work short of "they're all 3 of hearts!" which is really never the case right? I mean unless you're using a full one way forcing deck, but who really does that?

No spectator in their right mind is going to think "oh my gosh it's magic this guy has powers!" I'd be afraid of the spectator who thought it was real. the spectators know there's a secret, to pretend they don't is insulting their intelligence. so what does it matter weither they come to the end of "it must be some clever trick deck" vs "that must be some clever slieght of hand"?

On top of that, even when they say trick deck, what are the options they could be thinking of? Well there's the Svengali and stripper, both of which are readily found at Dollar General or Walmart as well as offered up as bait to any yahoo who walks into a magic shop looking for an easy trick. Then there's the obvious conclusion that most spectators will jump to, "maybe it's all the same card"

All three of those common thoughts are easily disproved, without trying to disprove them. Spread the deck. BOOM, there goes the thought that it's all the same card, as well as the Svengali idea. You've knocked out the most common spectator thought, and one of the others before you even begin.

Now let the spectator shuffle. BOOM, anybody who knows how a stripper deck works knows (or believes, because it's not necessarily true, but believed by most lay people who pick up a stripper deck) that you can't hand them out to be shuffled because cards could get turned arround. now all three of the most common spectator thoughts are gone.

The only reason they're left yelling "trick deck" is the same reason they're left yelling "slieght of hand". Some sort of justification for themself that this isn't witchcraft, and then if you add a little diversity into your effects the idea of a trick deck is even more ludicrous.

is it possible for the spectator to think "it must be a simple trick deck, yes a simple trick deck could let him visually change a card, and then make my card jump from his hand to being upside down in the deck, and then make all the cards seperate to black and red and put my card with the wrong color, and then that same trick deck could have the ability to split itself in half and send my card shooting out. simple trick deck, that's all" NOBODY THINKS THAT.

So why are we so uptight? does it matter what justification they use for themselves? so long as they're having fun?