Aeclectic Tarot Forum - Why Rider-Waite???

Faerie Lin

07-06-2002, 23:16

The Rider-Waite doesn't appeal to me either AT ALL. I don't have this deck. But I think the reason why its so highly recommended for learning tarot is because the cards' symbolisms and meanings are easy to read. Most books on tarot card meanings use this deck in reference because of this. Some of the decks I have, one really couldn't get the meaning of it just by looking at it not knowing first hand what the meaning was. Thats why I like when a deck has a very good descriptive hardbook with it, so it states in the deck's creator's own words how s/he translated the basic meaning in his/her own art.

But yes, personally I do not like the Rider-Waite deck either. But you'll find many decks that will be appealing to you that show the same symbolism in the Rider-Waite deck.

Lin

Starfish

07-06-2002, 23:23

I know what you mean, Houklani. Rider-Waite just doesn't appeal to me visually, either. I chose to go with Robin Wood. It is a much prettier version of the same type of cards and just appealed to me.

So many of the books use the Rider-Waite as a sample that I'm glad I chose my first deck to be along the same lines. It helps me in my studying.

(The asian decks I've see are just stunning visually)

Good luck in picking out your deck!

Starfish

zorya

08-06-2002, 00:27

there are advantages to a deck where the pips are not illustrated. they present a much clearer distinction between the major and minors when reading a spread. the study group; marseilles decks is fascinating. check them out!

another alternative, with a more scholarly approach to symbolism, would be a thoth deck.

Geenius at Wrok

08-06-2002, 01:08

The primary con if you choose a deck that doesn't use Rider-Waite symbology at all is that "standard" card interpretations may be harder to recall or may simply not apply.

The primary pro—well, if you like how the cards look and the style and symbology resonate with you, that's always a good thing. Obviously there's no reason to get a deck that doesn't even appeal to you aesthetically.

VGimlet

08-06-2002, 02:04

The pro's of not getting a R(S)W to start -
You learn with a deck you really like. Which, to me is very important. I really disliked all the traditional decks when I first got into tarot, so I started with a RW clone that had artwork I loved. (At the time, the choices were *very* limited.)

If you don't like your deck, you won't want to read with it. So, don't do it. You may find, after awhile, that you decide to get other decks, like the R(S)W, Thoth, and Marseille for study, even if you don't read with them. But, start with a deck you love.

The cons -
For me, it was more difficult to switch over to other decks, because I wasn't familiar with the some of the common symbolism used, just like Geenius said. But that gave me an excuse to buy more decks, because I have to study, don't I...LOL.

Mermaid

08-06-2002, 03:18

Houklani -

I don't know if you've thought of this already, but if you don't like the look of the RW but still like the idea of starting with a well known or "standard" deck, why not go for a RW clone? There are absolutely bucket-loads of decks out there that take most of their symbology from the RW, but are illustrated differently.

For example the Robin Wood is mostly based on the RW, and I think the Ancestral Path Tarot is similar. And I'm pretty sure that the Ukiyoe is a RW deck with a Japanese theme. There's bound to be something out there that you like! :)

Jenny-Li

08-06-2002, 03:42

I was thinking like that exactly, when I was out looking for my first deck, I just couldn't stand the RW-images! For me, I only had to get the Universal Waite instead, to get a deck I've been getting along with. I don't read with it now, have basically never done so, the UW is my "reference" deck, and the decks I use are RW-clones. "Clone" sounds like something very much alike the original, but they come in very different variations, I have the Robin Wood which is a clone, but also the World Spirit which is an RW-clone. (And as mentioned before, there are loads more!)

The RW-symbolism serves as basis for a lot of Tarot-literature, and for me it's natural to have reference deck for the purpose of being able to go "back to basics" - for study purposes!

I hope you find the right one!

Light and love,
Jenny :)

Geenius at Wrok

08-06-2002, 12:48

Originally posted by Mermaid
Houklani -
And I'm pretty sure that the Ukiyoe is a RW deck with a Japanese theme.Actually, it isn't. The minors are pips.

Pollux

08-06-2002, 13:23

The Ukyioe Deck is exactly like a Marseille Deck coming from Kyoto would be... *LOL* :D
It is a Marseille based deck, with Japanese images instead of the Marseilleuse... with lovely pips! Love those flowers!
*Pollux realises this deck is in his wishlist*

AND, you might also want to aive a look to the Feng Shui deck (maybe too particular) or THE CHINESE, that I really LOVE!!! :D Yes, I am biased! *LOL* I don't know enough about either probably, but the Chinese might be good for a start I guess...

On the Net there are thouands of "Asian" decks. Some are gorgeous!!!
WWW.TAROTGARDEN.COM is probably the best place to search...
HAVE FUN! :D

P.S. As stated before, the good thing about RW is the abundance of Literature... but you could still use the books with other decks, as I do! *LOL* And the personal feeling about the cards, the inspiration in brief is probably the fastest way and safest key to Tarot knowledge... Follow your flow! ;)

Mermaid

08-06-2002, 19:19

Ooops, sorry, my mistake! (I haven't seen the Ukiyoe in real life, just on line & I only got to see the majors.) Hope you find the deck you're after Houklani!

Vetch

06-08-2006, 08:46

I seem to be the only one here ... but ... R-W was my fist deck, because it was the only one available. I soon found it 'uncool', coz it's the deck 'everybody' uses. So I spent much money, buying this deck and that (eg. Thoth, Witches, Wiccan, Marsaille, Cosmic, Merlin, Motherpeace, Daughters of the Moon, LotR - those are the ones I can remember right now). They all taught me, but I was never satisfied, until i finally returned to Pamela's deck: Rider-Waite.
I do love its art. That's because I'm into Art Nouveau, Symbolism; and I feel very much at home in the times the deck was created. I find its symbolism very clever - there is no 'good', there is no 'bad' card (as it is the case with many other decks, eg. Thoth).
And from what I know about Pamela Colman Smith I admire her a lot, too.

So. That's why I do love this deck; I own the 'original' version and I am glad that I finally have re-discovered a deck that works for me and gives me a certain magical feeling of being at home. :)

ZenMusic

06-08-2006, 21:34

RW is a reference point, and important historically (but with many "errors" ) excellent place to start.. before you branch off (into Thoth or To Dreams for me)

he Universal Waite or the Radiant are nicer versions.. for a good education RW is essential..

basic technique/reference .. like learning to write traditional music (functional harmony etc.) or realistic painting before you leap into abstraction

Fulgour

07-08-2006, 00:20

We will never know the "true story" of how these cards
were created by Pamela Coman Smith, because people
are forever confused since Waite later wrote a booklet.

She didn't follow the Golden Dawn, which is easily seen,
and yet she didn't write her own book ~ the cards are
her gift to us and they must speak now for themselves.

We can see she did many other works with greater flair,
so we know she intended these to be simple and clear~
it is part of her strength that the art has a human face.

Imitators cannot match her beautifully sublime images...
and such stuff as magickal kabbalah etc is not intended.
Crowley and the others can be as fancy as they like but
here is something that has wings~ forever may it fly! :)

WOGIT

07-08-2006, 00:38

I have offten woundered that myself. I went to the local ocult shop and asked for help on picking my first deck. I was pointed to the Rider deck aswell. I bought it took it home and open it to discover that it was printed in spanish ??
O.O I went out the next day and bought the Ramses Tarot of the Eternity , as I have always liked the Egyptian theam. I found learning on that deck very easy and felt the cards realy spoke to me through its images. After useing and learning on my Ramses deck I found myself looking at my Rider deck more and more offten. Haveing also read "the Tarot , Historey, Symbolism, and Divination" by Robert M Place it only fed the fire to use my Rider deck more offten. The Rider deck has many many books writen about it and its symbolism and it is one of the most used decks out there. The accessibility of this deck alone may be one of the reasons it so recommended. Its art is simple , clear and fairly easy to understand the cards meaning. Haveing said that my Ramses deck is still my number 1 :)

WOGIT

07-08-2006, 00:42

Fulgour

07-08-2006, 00:45

Take a peek at the pip's in the Sola Busca Tarot.Too easy to use as an example: two cards sort of match.
How many decks are almost 100% copies of Pam's Tarot?

WOGIT

07-08-2006, 00:52

Too easy to use as an example: two cards sort of match.
How many decks are almost 100% copies of Pam's Tarot?
The Sola deck to the best of my knowledge was the first deck to use pictures depicting situations on there pips and not 100 % sure and will divert to your knowledge on this but could swear there were more then just a few cards that looked alike, 3 of swords , the aces, to name a few? no?
But yes you are 100 % right on her deck being one of the most copyed.

Antonius

07-08-2006, 03:21

My advice to you Houklani, would be to buy a traditional deck for your first Tarot,such as Marseille,Italian,Swiss,.....at least this way you can see and learn how it all started,then maybe move onto decks that show pictures throughout the entire 78 cards.Most of the decks around today including Waite/Coleman Smith,all started with strong influence from these traditional decks to begin with.
There are so many decks available today with a wide variation of themes,some of which i think have lost the plot!,and i just feel we need to get back to the traditional Tarot images, you can at least then form your own opinion where to go from there.
So good luck with your first deck,and have fun searching.

Kind regards; Antonius.

Vetch

07-08-2006, 03:49

Oh, I like this place and its decent people. And Fulguor: how can I put it ... Beautiful! YES! :)

Fudugazi

07-08-2006, 04:46

basic technique/reference .. like learning to write traditional music (functional harmony etc.) or realistic painting before you leap into abstractionActually, in the history of tarot, the Rider-Waite-Smith is comparatively modern. For those who want to start with the traditional, the functional harmony etc. then it's best done with the Marseille and the Visconti, and the like - before getting to the occult, scenic Rider-Waite-Smith (Pamela Colman-Smith was a member of the Golden Dawn - she did not need steering to be inspired - though I think we owe at least as much to her own imagination as to Golden Dawn teachings in that deck), and then onwards.

I've had several RWS periods. I started with it, and used it for six months, before switching to the Morgan-Greer - or rather, using both. After a couple of years, I started with a completely different deck - the Mythic - which I fell in love with in a way I hadn't with the RWS or the MG. It remained my main reading deck for years. I also learnt the Thoth, which is beautiful - I admire the art more than the RWS, and I am interested in the whole philosophy behind it. I also used the Robin Wood, which I find very kitsch, but which reads well - and querents like it.

Then came a huge breakthrough for me when I discovered and learnt the Marseille. There was a deck I used to find ugly, and ended up loving. Still do! I don't think there is a deck I cherish more than my Dodal - not only because it's rare.

Then last year I acquired a 1971 Rider ed. RWS on ebay, and I fell in love with it - so what hadn't happened initially happened then. Go figure. The colours are more vibrant but not blinding, I like the quality of the cards...but also, I saw the movement and humour in them, Pamela's special sensitivity, the theatrical feel (she was a scene designer for theatres). The faces are not really faces, but the body language of the people is very eloquent...

Anyway, all this to say - I think the RWS is one of those decks we can come to after many tarot adventures, having initially rejected it - as well as being the classic starter deck in Anglo-Saxon countries.

gollog

07-08-2006, 05:13

I would start with a deck you like, it will keep you interested for a while because you will want to look at the beautiful pictures all the time, and prevent you from giving up tarot because you don't like the look of the cards. (Altough I would choose a deck with scenic minors). And then later on, maybe buy a rider or thoth or marseille when you feel the need to.

I started with a deck I liked, just played around with it for a year or so. Then I got more interested in symbology and found a rider waite on sale and bought it just out of curiosity. DId not use it for years because I didn't find it particularly appealing, and then, all of a sudden I got interested in it and now it is my main reading deck. Still don't think the art is fabulous but there is something about this deck...

Antonius

07-08-2006, 07:03

Actually, in the history of tarot, the Rider-Waite-Smith is comparatively modern. For those who want to start with the traditional, the functional harmony etc. then it's best done with the Marseille and the Visconti, and the like - before getting to the occult, scenic Rider-Waite-Smith (Pamela Colman-Smith was a member of the Golden Dawn - she did not need steering to be inspired - though I think we owe at least as much to her own imagination as to Golden Dawn teachings in that deck), and then onwards.

I've had several RWS periods. I started with it, and used it for six months, before switching to the Morgan-Greer - or rather, using both. After a couple of years, I started with a completely different deck - the Mythic - which I fell in love with in a way I hadn't with the RWS or the MG. It remained my main reading deck for years. I also learnt the Thoth, which is beautiful - I admire the art more than the RWS, and I am interested in the whole philosophy behind it. I also used the Robin Wood, which I find very kitsch, but which reads well - and querents like it.

Then came a huge breakthrough for me when I discovered and learnt the Marseille. There was a deck I used to find ugly, and ended up loving. Still do! I don't think there is a deck I cherish more than my Dodal - not only because it's rare.

Then last year I acquired a 1971 Rider ed. RWS on ebay, and I fell in love with it - so what hadn't happened initially happened then. Go figure. The colours are more vibrant but not blinding, I like the quality of the cards...but also, I saw the movement and humour in them, Pamela's special sensitivity, the theatrical feel (she was a scene designer for theatres). The faces are not really faces, but the body language of the people is very eloquent...

Anyway, all this to say - I think the RWS is one of those decks we can come to after many tarot adventures, having initially rejected it - as well as being the classic starter deck in Anglo-Saxon countries.

Thanks Helvetica,
Really enjoyed reading those comments and could'nt agree more!,.....and beautifully put.

garfield

11-08-2006, 08:48

Well for me the reason why i choose rider waite is its symbolism. somehow the symbolism is complex but at the same time easy to understnad

ZenMusic

11-08-2006, 09:12

Originally Posted by ZenMusic
>basic technique/reference .. like learning to write traditional music (functional harmony etc.) or realistic painting before you leap into abstraction

Helvetica said.
>Actually, in the history of tarot, the Rider-Waite-Smith is comparatively modern.

Zen replies
It is Exactly the same with.. "functional harmony" which is also "comparatively" modern.. harmony was totally non-functional through most of history (first 2,000 years of documented music)... and also even more "modern" harmony (say Shoenberg's dodecaphonic theory) is also considered basic technique... i learned that in grade-school as part of a solid musical training

.... my view is that a serious tarotist .. (beyond a hobbyist) would certainly study .. Tarocchi, Visconti, Marseille Gébelin, Comte de Mellet, Lévi, Papus, Zain, Case.. can't know tarot without all this.. and I can't imagine thinking RW is not necessary.., except for the "intuitive" only reader, who doesn't need a tarot deck at all

...spent a year in Italy with my wife when she was researching her Ph.D. in music history and I was writing my dissertation.. we spent a lot of time in libraries, ancient church archives.. and (she especially) spent much of the time looking into Tarot history.. while supported by music grants... (Smile) glad we didn't have to account for all our time.. but we DID also uncovered, rediscovered some music that had been lost for centuries.. including one beautiful harpsichord piece that was the saddest music i ever heard.. more than justified the investment

truelighth

11-08-2006, 10:35

Anyway, all this to say - I think the RWS is one of those decks we can come to after many tarot adventures, having initially rejected it - as well as being the classic starter deck in Anglo-Saxon countries.

I agree with this. I initially rejected the RWS as being too ugly and bold. Now I am one of it's biggest fans and absolutely adore Pamela's artwork!

For me personally, I feel the RWS has much to offer to beginners and advanced readers both. It has levels of symbolism and yet is still accessible.

Scion

11-08-2006, 12:50

.... my view is that a serious tarotist .. (beyond a hobbyist) would certainly study .. Tarocchi, Visconti, Marseille Gébelin, Comte de Mellet, Lévi, Papus, Zain, Case.. can't know tarot without all this.. and I can't imagine thinking RW is not necessary.., except for the "intuitive" only reader, who doesn't need a tarot deck at all
I could not agree more, ZM. With all of these thoughts! Eventually everyone will track back to these folks because they are the roots. The Waite-Smith is monolithic in its importance to the history, most will want one even if it's to decide why they reject it. And for intuitive reading the deck is ancillary, making discussions about "intuitive" decks (now there's an oxymoron) completely subjective by definition.
Then last year I acquired a 1971 Rider ed. RWS on ebay, and I fell in love with it - so what hadn't happened initially happened then. Go figure. The colours are more vibrant but not blinding, I like the quality of the cards...but also, I saw the movement and humour in them, Pamela's special sensitivity, the theatrical feel (she was a scene designer for theatres). The faces are not really faces, but the body language of the people is very eloquent...
That gave me goosebumps. It's funny, Soph. But until I read this I'd never thought about how much the theatrical design quality of Pixie's images might have influenced my early ease with this deck. I knew her history, but I'd never considered how comfortable that must have made me at 13. "Faces that are not really faces." Like actors in front of flats, and no less real/vibrant because they're telling someone else's story. The exaggeration and the sketched in details: exactly like a designer's rendering of a set based on a script waiting for actors to stomp around in it and make a story happen.

This quality may also be what disappoints those who are disappointed by the artwork. The artwork is not intended to be representative or lush: the flatness, the sketchiness, the blank faces... were choices. She LIVED in a time when artists used vibrant color and sinuous line to seduce the viewer; couldn't she have sumoned up all of the fin-de-siecle devices had she wanted? Look at her contemporaries. She wasn't an idiot; perhaps she was aiming at (or stumbled onto) something more complex.

Perhaps, lush, artful detail would have been counterproductive. Her purpose was not pretty pictures (although the images are beautiful in their way) but a kind of coded indication with intelligent spaces that engaged the active imagination. (Another discovery: this is why the International Icon is so successful: iit captures this rendered purity!) Because in theatre, a design is not a picture of a play any more than a script is a transcription of the experience: it's a blueprint for professionals to read and execute.

For some folks, reading Pixie's plans may feel like watching a drafting table. And too, the reason the deck's so popular is that the blueprint-quality (like any good design) leaves big juicy gaps for real life and real people to come and fill, once a reading is underway.

Something there, Sophie! There's more... Must think more about this.

we spent a lot of time in libraries, ancient church archives.. and (she especially) spent much of the time looking into Tarot history.. while supported by music grants...
And people say that Heaven doesn't exist... :D

Scion

rota

11-08-2006, 19:46

"Her purpose was not pretty pictures (although the images are beautiful in their way) but a kind of coded indication with intelligent spaces that engaged the active imagination."

+++++

Well said. It's not about pretty pictures, so much as the RIGHT pictures. So many people don't really get Pixie, I think.

+++++

sunstallion

11-08-2006, 23:25

This Rider-Waite deck was my first one and is the only one I can use. It helped a lot in learning tarot. I can pick up impressions from the pictures (but my interpretation is still off sometime).

I recently studied the Thoth deck and read the book (studied from the beginning of the book) that was recommended in this forum. However, i am still nowhere with Thoth deck and that book. So, I think I may have to give up that Thoth deck.

Fulgour

12-08-2006, 06:21

I own the 'original' version and I am glad that I finally have re-discovered a deck that works for me and gives me a certain magical feeling of being at home. :)Hi :) Vetch! I was wondering, which version
do you have? On the attachment below are
images of two (not exactly sized to scale)...

shadowdancer

12-08-2006, 08:30

I think another deck I would add to the mix here as being a good alternative to the RWS deck, especially for those who want to use something with that sytem, is the Arcus Arcanum. I think it is a little underestimated, and would not even think about trading that particular deck.

This along with my Robin Wood I would definitely recommend to those starting on the tarot road

Davina

Rosanne

12-08-2006, 09:30

Most of the advice I've heard on buying a first deck is geared towards Rider-Waite or something similar. I've taken a look at them, and they really just don't appeal to me. What would be the pros and cons of getting a deck that doesn't look like Rider-Waite at all

Well you would get a deck that does appeal to you, from so many options available. Conversely, you would not have an understanding of what is called the RWS system, unless you acquired a clone with an excellent companion book- which would be using the RWS system anyway.
If you went for a historical reproduction of The Tarot of Marseilles/or Sola Busca for example, you would be doing what I suspect Pamela Colman Smith did before she designed her cards. So you would be starting on a journey that she did and maybe the worth of that would be immeasurable for you. Conversely, as has been said, most books in English are based on her cards.
I cannot explain to you, my attraction to RWS. It is born out of long use and initially little choice in decks;I have 15 decks in my heart but RWS has the biggest share. In there is two that might appeal -The Chinese Tarot by Jui Guoliang and the Fantastic Menagerie from the Baba Studio. You could use all the RWS literature with both of these.
Also is a suggestion that you print out one card from RWS in large format- say 'the Empress' and place it in your room for a week maybe- and then you might see what people love so much about the deck in general. The very best to you Houklani ~Rosanne

chrisam-crystals

12-08-2006, 09:40

i'm going against the grain here and have to say that the rider waite does nothing for me either.....sorry.

i feel rather flat whenever i look at the cards and although the imagery is excellent, i just cannot connect to them.

but hey, if we were all the same and liked the same things the world would be such a boring place to live in. :)

jue xx

Fulgour

22-08-2006, 21:33

It's not about pretty pictures, so much as the RIGHT pictures.
So many people don't really get Pixie, I think.The Minor Arcana could be sub-titled:
Archetype Avenue

Every image has Full Power! :)

olivia

23-08-2006, 09:20

Did you see the morgan-greer deck?
It's other option recommended for beginners with a lot of related material even a study group in aeclectic.

Grizabella

23-08-2006, 11:23

I hated the RWS artwork. I went with so many other decks that were themed decks or appealed to me more when I first started but in the end, came back to RWS to learn. I got a Universal Waite, though, because it's got better coloring and I could live with it better while I was learning.

Now I'm discovering how many RWS style decks there actually are and I can read with all of them since having learned the basics with the Universal Waite. I can even read with ones that depart from RWS to a large degree, so I'm glad I finally went to the basics and got a good foundation. I just wish I had all the money I spent on other decks before giving in and starting with the Universal Waite, though. :P

People have mentioned the Robin Wood and Morgan-Greer. I suggest getting the book that goes with the Robin Wood deck if you choose that one, or you miss out on some of her wonderful symbology.

I've just discovered the New Palladini and it's a gorgeous deck. You might try that one. It's coming in the mail to me any day now. It's a RWS "clone" but very art deco in style with extremely rich, vibrant colors.

There's also the Giilded that might be a good one for you to start with and it comes with its own book that's very good for a beginner. It's a beautiful deck, as well.

Good luck finding the one you can begin with.

Eco74

23-08-2006, 12:32

I'd say start with whatever deck that strikes your fancy.

Though it's a really really great advantage to pick one that has a good companion book explaining not only the basic keywords and one or two little examples but goes a little deeper into the symbology used on the cards and maybe even gives a few practical examples of the less usual kind besides the "this card usually means X".

I started out with the Swedish Witch, which is a thoth-inspired deck and has a separate companion book (only available in swedish though) where the cards were explained in a really good and in-depth way.
With a deck and only a LWB or with a book only going into the standard keywords and situations where the card could be expected to come up, I'd have taken a lot longer than I did in learning to read the cards.

Which is also one of the main reasons why the RWS is recommended.
It's easy to find a book one likes and understands that stays within the symbology, style and content of the cards if one chooses the RWS (any of the printruns/versions) simply because so many books are based on RWS symbology and if the book that comes with the deck (if any) isn't very informative or isn't to ones liking, it's not always as easily exchangeable if one has opted for a very specialised or different deck.

But there are some good decks out there that have good companion books so you're really not that limited provided you, the deck and the book all get along.
Revelations, Tarot of Prague, Robin Wood and then some..

Bad_Calvin

23-08-2006, 14:11

I don't think you will learn from something you don't like or cherish. You get the deck that YOU like and then go from there.

Me I LOVE the archeon tarot. The artwork is perfect by my standards.

archeontarot.com

You can see the cards there for yourself.

Vetch

12-10-2007, 07:54

Okay...

Is it appropriate to answer to a thread after a year offline?

Ah, I just realize that, when I was just newly registered here, more than a year ago, I answered to a thread that had been sleeping for more than 4 years!
So, good morning, Pamela's Thread. Still a beauty to me! :D

There's this unanswered question... I don't think it makes much sense to reply a year later, but still. I don't like loose ends. :)
Hi :) Vetch! I was wondering, which version
do you have? On the attachment below are
images of two (not exactly sized to scale)...http://www.tarotforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=12778

I don't recognize the beautiful box on the left, but the paler colours (with tiny dots and lines, when one looks closer?) and the bonny backside are definitely like my deck.

Now, if s/o can't stand the pictures of the RWS, then there really is no need to put up with them. But here is another reason for using Pamela's deck:
It's easy to get, in all sizes, and it's not expensive.
I own the great beauty I mention above, and also two small decks.
The Beauty is wrapped in silk, rests in a wooden box, and is used at my place only.
The small decks are my 'Straßenkarten' ('streetcards').
On one of them I have written personal key-words and stuff. I carry at least one of them around with me all the time. Everybody who is interested is welcome to touch them. I have more than once deliberately shuffled them with traces of essential oil on my fingers - now they scent faintly (mainly of patchouli, I must admit :D). Sometimes I use both decks for a long and lovely game of Patience. A great way to bond with a deck and the images, imo.
I could buy a new one of those small decks whenever I needed. But I've owned them for, dunno, more than ten years (rather closer to 20), and they're still fine. Not 'good as new' --- but used, well loved and beautiful.
Because of the total lack of ceremonial treatment they have acquired a powerful magic of their own.

I could never do anything like that to an expensive, hard-to-get-deck.

caridwen

12-10-2007, 09:05

What is the point in starting out with a RWS clone?:confused:

There are three main branches of Tarot - Tarot de Marseilles, Thoth and RWS. As far as I am aware, please correct me if I'm wrong but the majority of decks are based on RWS symbology and meaning. Then I would say Tarot de Marseilles then Thoth.

There's no point, as far as I can see, learning tarot from a copy of the original. You could spend a lifetime studying the RWS and still have only dug an inch - that's why it's so enduring. A copy is mixed with the artists/creators interpretation as well as Waites' so you may as well not learn the symbology at all and just go for intuitive readings. You also have to bear in mind the quality of the clone, does the creator actually have a good knowledge of tarot? They could just be throwing in their own interpretations making it personal to them but of little use to anyone else. One of my favourite decks, the Vargo Gothic is great for intuitive readings but the creator didn't have that great a knowledge of tarot when putting the deck together...

You could get the RWS purely for learning and research and a deck you like for readings.