Doesn’t the code by Andy Nyman have such a feature?

The original post asked for a deck marked ONLY with mnemonica numbers. I don't believe such a thing exists (from the factory), nor ever will. By NOT also including rank+suit the manufacturer would massively limit their potential market. I think stack numbers will only ever be printed in addition to the standard rank+suit markings.

The OP provided a link to an example - but that is clearly a normal deck that has been hand-marked, then re-sealed.

I agree that stack markings will likely always be in addition to value/suit. As you mentioned previously DMC Elite v5 does this - and extremely well imo. They are not cheap, but I think they are very useful for a range of card work - without having to swap out decks. I just keep using them for non-stack and marked deck tricks, mainly for continuity, but also because I find them nice to handle.

Get some unmarked Tally Ho decks and mark them up using Mainframe marking system. I make the marks for just the stack number.

Sorry about the late comment. I have only just learnt how to keep track of a thread on this forum. I was wondering why I didn't get any notifications of activity - fixed now!

Anyway, back to the topic...

I am sure using Tally Ho cards, with Mainframe would work well.

I also have a home-made system for marking Bikes with Mnemonica (or any other mem stack). I honestly do not know whether I worked this out, or it was prompted by someone in the reading I did a while back when looking at marking systems. I would guess the latter.

It isn't rocket science, but it simply involves the 'floral pattern' (that most people use to mark values with) and the centre-top 'leaf arrangement'.

As we know, there are 9 places to mark in the 'flower pattern' (8 x petals and the centre dot), so we mark one for each number from 1-9 (in whatever sequence suits you) and no marks if it is a 0 at the end. Then there are the 'leaves' in the centre of the back design - 4 x leaves and a stalk/bulb. Once again, mark nothing here if the stack # is 1-9, mark one petal if 10-19, another (or 2) if 20-29, and another (or 3) if 30-39, etc. For the 50s, I mark the centre stalk (leaving the bulb unmarked). I think it less obvious that way, although there are only 3 cards to worry about.

Anyway, that works if you have the eyesight to read those marks confidently.

I am sure there are other ways, but that is what I have done in the past.

Now I just pull out my DMCs and the stack numbers are as clear as a bell ! !

I can't believe how clear the markings are on the DMCs. After just a few minutes with them they can be read clear as day, but I've yet to have anyone pick up on anything (even against some very suspicious eyes given as much time as they'd like). Very impressive stuff.

Yes, they are a classic case of "once you see them, you cannot 'un-see' them".

Yet, until you see them, or know to look, they seem to have just another nice back design.

I consider this a perfect outcome for a m*****d d**k.

Awesome cards, IMO.

I realize that this is probably a defunct thread, so here in this quiet little cul-de-sac of the Café, it is with misty eyes and a faintly quivering lip that I ponder JuanPoop's sadly ironic observation, "once you see them, you cannot 'un-see' them". With Phill Smith's sounding of the death knell of his universally acclaimed DMC Elites on April 28, 2023, it now seems inevitable that we'll all be 'un-seeing' that wonderful OMS (Optical Marking System) in the days and months ahead. Pity. Many, including yours truly, found it the closest approach to perfection that we were ever likely to enjoy in our lifetime. (sigh) For one brief shining moment there was Camelot. Let us hope it won't be be forgot.

I must confess I am baffled by this decision.

Maybe someone with more street cred than I possess should contact P. Smith and demand a fuller explanation beyond the vague one given of wanting to "focus on working on different projects." How much creative energy does it take to keep on printing the highly popular designs that already exist? How much more would a little extra warehouse space cost? I'm 100% in accord with Nikodemus in finding the whole thing simply baffling.