Видео

ooh i think i've found my deck thank you

Мне понравилось первая колода

Класс 🎉

Thank you

What a pity the camera isn't in focus plus your hands are shaking. There is no N in Taschen.

To answer your question: The original backs are a very light brown. Like the Taschen deck. Also, the Taschen deck is actually not cleaned up! It is a true fascimile. It shows the details of an actual Pam A deck. And there is more texture on that one too. The only thing is that it is too red and not the exact colours. The MPC deck does look more dirty. It is missing the details and texture, because it was made from low resolution scans. Then using print on demand adds bleeding colours too. And I think it has a aging filter. The colours are also not correct. It is too grey. The Taschen one was made from a real Pam A that I own. The MPC one was also made from a real Pam A, but from Kenji Ishimatsu. So what you see, the detail and more clarity, that is what you see with a real Pam A. Taschen has not cleaned it up. But they did alter the colours slightly, using too much red. The blurriness of the Conrad Steyn is due to the source and production. Which is substandard. So the Taschen is superior and closer to the real thing imo

The Key to the Tarot is indeed a fascimile of the real book. The real 1910 Key has a blue cover. But the titles are gold

Thank you so much for this video! I want a Pam A facsimile with the crackle back, and this video confirms for me that the Steyn version is probably where I'm headed. If Taschen had produced the facsimile deck and book set alone for about $50 or $60 bucks, I would have been all in, but the larger book is simply something that I neither need nor want. Thanks again!

👍 I had the same problem with the box 🙏 I don’t have the Pam A but have the Roses and Lilies I do like

Thank you!

I want to say if you’re a Pamela Colman Smith purest then go with the Lillies and Roses deck and/or Pam A deck as they’re taken from the same original drawing/printing tiles drawn by P.C.S. herself. If you’re a collector then of course it doesn’t matter and get them all lol. Pam B and C aren’t from Pamela Colman Smith' original art drawings/printing tiles as they were re-drawn by a different artist or copyist around 1919 that tried to duplicate/replicate the line drawings of hers but was off in donig so in some area on some cards (like the Sun and Lovers to name a few with some instances just looking sloppy.) It’s believed Pam B is from the same drawings/tiles/new artist or copyist as Pam C but was just an inferior printing run to Pam C. That’s why L&R and Pam A look identical yet look slightly different in some line drawings compared to Pam B and C yet Pam B and C look almost indentical to one another. Why this was done by Arthur Waite no one knows, but probably because the original art work and original tiles were lost or destroyed by that point in 1919 so new ones had to be re-drawn for new printing tile plates for those further post 1920 print releases. Pam D is believed to be a low quality photographic reproduction copy taken from a Pam A deck (but on inferior cardstock and sometimes being badly cropped) released right at the same time or right before Pam C was released in 1920. I believe the order of release is L&R, Pam A, Pam C, Pam D (same time as C), then Pam B. Why P.C.S. didn’t do the re-drawings herself isn’t known. But in a letter written by her to someone on November 19, 1909 she tells the person it was a big job creating the art work for those cards, and she got very little cash out of it in return. She doesn’t mentioned it, but she also most likely knew that she didn’t receive any direct credit for her work by A.E. Waite for doing the art work drawings for him for the cards (which was common in that era.) Interesting about that letter if one want’s too Google it to read, is that she kind of indicates she had retained the original art work drawings and was going to give or sell some of them to that person in the letter which could be the reason the originals weren’t around in 1919 to be printed from. But it's unknown one way or the other if she actually did so or not. The original tiles themselves could of been lost or destroyed for any number of reasons including because of WWI by 1919. P.C.S. fully converted to Catholicism later in life and distanced herself from her past involvement with the occult and Gold Dawn stuff, so that could be another reason for her lack of involvement later on. The L&R was something of a protype by A.E. Waite with a very limited test run on lighter cardstock not really meant for general use and with a lighter printing ink run. When A.E. Waite offically released the cards in 1910 he used better cardstock meant for active usage, and used a different more deeper printing press for the 1910 Pam A release, and changed to a crackle back image. Then he issued a recall of the L&R decks saying that he would give anyone with a L&R deck a Pam A deck for free if they sent back their L&R deck which is probably why only like five are known to exist tot his day as there weren't many made to begin with and those that were had been exchanged in for the Pam A deck. Waite didn't actually use the terms of Pam A or B or C as the letter identificaiton only came decades later to help us know and identify which release runs belong to which release dates. So if you're someone that wants to use the cards and wants a deck that comes from P.C.S. actual drawining art prints and tiles that she had drawn herself (not a copyest or artists re-drawing of her work) then L&R and Pam A decks are the cards to use.

I want to say if you’re a Pamela Colman Smith purest then go with the Lillies and Roses deck and/or Pam A deck as they’re taken from the same original drawing/printing tiles drawn by P.C.S. herself. If you’re a collector then of course it doesn’t matter and get them all lol. Pam B and C aren’t from Pamela Colman Smith' original art drawings/printing tiles as they were re-drawn by a different artist or copyist around 1919 that tried to duplicate/replicate the line drawings of hers but was off in donig so in some area on some cards (like the Sun and Lovers to name a few with some instances just looking sloppy.) It’s believed Pam B is from the same drawings/tiles/new artist or copyist as Pam C but was just an inferior printing run to Pam C. That’s why L&R and Pam A look identical yet look slightly different in some line drawings compared to Pam B and C yet Pam B and C look almost indentical to one another. Why this was done by Arthur Waite no one knows, but probably because the original art work and original tiles were lost or destroyed by that point in 1919 so new ones had to be re-drawn for new printing tile plates for those further post 1920 print releases. Pam D is believed to be a low quality photographic reproduction copy taken from a Pam A deck (but on inferior cardstock and sometimes being badly cropped) released right at the same time or right before Pam C was released in 1920. I believe the order of release is L&R, Pam A, Pam C, Pam D (same time as C), then Pam B. Why P.C.S. didn’t do the re-drawings herself isn’t known. But in a letter written by her to someone on November 19, 1909 she tells the person it was a big job creating the art work for those cards, and she got very little cash out of it in return. She doesn’t mentioned it, but she also most likely knew that she didn’t receive any direct credit for her work by A.E. Waite for doing the art work drawings for him for the cards (which was common in that era.) Interesting about that letter if one want’s too Google it to read, is that she kind of indicates she had retained the original art work drawings and was going to give or sell some of them to that person in the letter which could be the reason the originals weren’t around in 1919 to be printed from. But it's unknown one way or the other if she actually did so or not. The original tiles themselves could of been lost or destroyed for any number of reasons including because of WWI by 1919. P.C.S. fully converted to Catholicism later in life and distanced herself from her past involvement with the occult and Gold Dawn stuff, so that could be another reason for her lack of involvement later on. The L&R was something of a protype by A.E. Waite with a very limited test run on lighter cardstock not really meant for general use and with a lighter printing ink run. When A.E. Waite offically released the cards in 1910 he used better cardstock meant for active usage, and used a different more deeper printing press for the 1910 Pam A release, and changed to a crackle back image. Then he issued a recall of the L&R decks saying that he would give anyone with a L&R deck a Pam A deck for free if they sent back their L&R deck which is probably why only like five are known to exist tot his day as there weren't many made to begin with and those that were had been exchanged in for the Pam A deck. Waite didn't actually use the terms of Pam A or B or C as the letter identificaiton only came decades later to help us know and identify which release runs belong to which release dates. So if you're someone that wants to use the cards and wants a deck that comes from P.C.S. actual drawining art prints and tiles that she had drawn herself (not a copyest or artists re-drawing of her work) then L&R and Pam A decks are the cards to use.

what deck is worth the most now? would you ever consider parting from them?

u went through the cards too fast imo but still appreciate seeng the side by side

The Pam A scans are provided by Kenji Ishimatsu (with special permission for reproduction) (:

Great comparison!

Such an intriguing deck, Tarot of the Restored Order. Of course, C.S. Tarot is a stunning deck as well.

Great video, really good introduction into RSW decks.

Great video outlining these decks!

Wow these are much closer in appearance than I would have guessed! I got my first Centennial at the peak of the "everyone hates borders" phase, and I really regret it. To my understanding, they added image to PCS' drawings to make the borderless happen. It's just a shame because one of my favorite things about the RWS are the hand drawn borders! Your comparison actually makes me wonder if I should just buy the bordered Centennial rather than the reproduction. (I already have the 1909 art restoration deck from Drive Through Cards, which has lovely images but terrible card stock). Ah, decisions decisions when you're a collector.

oh i loved Carnivale too! So sad that it wasn't continued and the story finished.

Thanks for sharing Lisa

So happy for you to get your Blushing Fool! Could you do some comparisons with it with the Conrad Steyn decks? Thank you for the video!💜

Thank you Lisa for posting

the cat people is very hm....ugly imo lol these cats looks like angry people, not angry cats, pretty weird...pagan an mystical decks are my favorite of them, would be buying the black cat deck!

Спасибо.Какая красота.🤗🤗🤗

Здравствуйте.Мне очень понравилась первая колода как под старину.Очень красивая.Вы продаёте её, сколько ноа стоит?Спасибо

May I ask where you got your deck?

The one on the right is the Radiant Rider Waite. I mispoke at a couple of times saying the Radiant Wise. That's a different deck. Sorry.

I love them all!!! 🐾

I liked the Waiter-Smith deck. I loved the video.

Good morning. Thanks for the flip through. This deck was created by Lisa 2 of Cups, and she did a walkthrough a little while back. She also created a diverse TdM, also available from MPC. I have the TdM and it's really beautiful.

Thanks for sharing ! Love the colors in this one. Does it riffle shuffle ? Thank you have a nice day 😊😊🌞🌞

Hello and congrats on your new videos and channel. Thanks for showing the comparisons of these 2 decks, very helpful. So glad that the RUclips algorithm lead me to discover your channel today! 👏👏👏