In the standard French-suited pack, the so-called ‘numeral’ cards are simply the 1 (Ace) to 10 of each suit. They are more naturally referred to as pips or pip-cards, spots or spot-cards. Here we will look into the classification of packs according to these numeral cards. This has the potential to be the dullest possible endeavor, but fortunately there are some surprises in store. This research involved classifying pip designs in 400 or so standard packs, mainly English and American but including 20 or so packs from France.

The set of numerals below come from a pack by Jean Gisaine of Dinant sur Meuse circa 1745^[1]. These are completely typical for numerals of the French regional cards and for the few earliest English cards we know of. The smaller numerals (i.e. 1-6) follow similar – and simpler – patterns that readers would find familiar.

What can we say about these? Firstly, that all the pips (or suit signs) are oriented the same way. Thus, each card has only one correct orientation, which is also the case for the one-way full-figure court cards in the same pack. Secondly, we note that some choices have been made: in the seven, the middle column has its only card at the top, whereas the nine has it at the centre. The nine is curious in that it is perhaps not the most obvious choice; five pips at the top and four below would seem more typical of the way the other numerals are set out.

The defining feature here is that the pip signs in the centre column are all aligned at the midpoint of the four nearest pips. It is proposed to call this arrangement ‘FC’, the F designating full length cards and the C showing centred pips.

This may make more sense given a contrast. There is just one other common full-length arrangement which became the most typical for English cards from around 1770 and until the arrival of double ended cards around 100 years later (illustrated below). While at first sight the arrangement is very similar, note that the pips in the centre column have been moved away from their central positions and towards the edge of the card; the blue lines added to the seven show where we might have expected the pip to have been placed.

It is proposed to call this arrangement ‘FE’ meaning full length cards with their central pips closer to the card edge.

While these two arrangements cover possibilities for full-length pip cards, there are exceptional packs in which full-length courts are combined with double ended pip cards. The set by J Y Humphreys illustrated below is believed to have been made around 1816^[2]. It is very early by American standards and truly remarkable in that symmetrical double ended pip cards are introduced here decades before fully two-way cards emerge. One must pause to wonder how Humphreys’ fortune might have changed had he also made two-ended court cards?

Like many makers, Humphyreys’ started out with the idea of rotational symmetry: this is most easily appreciated by noting the dotted red lines added to the images. The basic idea is that the card should look the same when turned around for the even numbers and nearly the same for the odd numbers. This arrangement is designated ‘DS’ for double ended and symmetrical. As we are describing cards and not mathematical objects, the near-symmetry can be accommodated. We will see that there are different arrangement that use symmetry, but it is not proposed here to give them individual designations, which would most likely be too detailed and potentially confusing.

Before moving on, we note that the first English double-ended cards by Ludlow and Wheeler (c 1801) used symmetrical pip designs similar to the Humphreys set. Several other American makers also use this curious mix of full-length courts and symmetrical pip cards.

The English firm of Bancks Brothers also experimented. Their choice of left-right symmetric cards gives a highly unusual effect (see illustration). Note also that the nine is a curious design in that the three top pips are aligned and the equivalent three at the bottom are not. Bancks brothers had been the dominant manufacturer – with a Royal warrant – but by the 1860s their workshop faced fierce and ultimately unstoppable competition from the factories of De La Rue and Goodall.

The set by Bancks is helpful to us in one way: looking at the top end of any of these cards, the mix of directions fails aesthetically. The cards look confusing. This is surely why the two-ended designs did not follow the logic of symmetry, looking the same when turned around.

The type of design that did make a lasting impression first appears on cards by Thomas Crehore from around 1820^[3]. Here there is emphasis on having all the pips the same way at the top of the card. Anticipating the other variations, the key card to check is the seven. In the Crehore set, this has four pips up and three down and we designate this arrangement ‘D43’ meaning double ended and four versus three.

This arrangement of pips was quickly copied by other American makers and remains a standard – more obviously, of course, combined with two-way court cards. The English were slower to change and did not fully switch to double-ended designs until the 1870s.

The less obvious choice for the seven has five pips up and two down. This we propose to designate as ‘D52’, and this has become far more common than ‘D43’. Surprisingly, the eight has five pips up and three down. In spite of its apparent arbitrariness, ths ‘D52’ arrangement is more-or-less the modern standard. Perhaps the compromise of having more pips aligned, creating an obvious preferred orientation, is more aesthetically acceptable.

While these two arrangements cover the majority of cards, there are exceptions. Ken Lodge’s Blog on wopc.co.uk gives a number of examples where the maker probably was unaware of any tradition. There are inevitably some strange mixtures, like the Samuel Hart cards shown. These could be designated ‘DM’ – double ended and mixed in type.

With double ended designs established in the 19th Century, there was little change until the 21st. In bridge matches it is possible to use the standard design for signalling - for example a pair of players might agree that playing a card upside-down is a request for a change of suit to be led next. Both Piatnik and Cartamundi produced fully symmetrical cards intended for bridge use. The suggested designations is ‘DSS’ indicating Double-ended with ‘supersymmetry’ (with apologies to theoretical physics).

Time and time again, innovations in card design come up against the card players’ preference for the known patterns. These fully symmetric cards are not to everyone’s taste and some bridge players have found that the Aces in these sets can be hard to distinguish (particularly in poor light). It is now clear that these innovative but awkward designs are not going to become a new standard.