Ugly RWS backs

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 11 Jul 2003, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Le_Corsair	11 Jul 2003
Here's the word from the head of US Games about the ugly backs on the Rider-Waite-Smith standard deck: (edited for privacy purposes) QUOTE Re: Tarot Card Backs Dear Mr. *****: Thanks for the email. I spoke to Mr. Kaplan regarding the back design on the Rider Tarot. He explained that the tarotee (plaid) back is used because that was the original back design for the deck and he wanted to stay true to the original. There are no plans to change the back design of the Rider Tarot at this time. Sincerely, Jessica Sutton Cust. Serv. Coordinator/ Claims Specialist U.S. Games Systems, Inc. END QUOTE The cynic in me says that they keep the deck as ugly as possible so as to encourage sales of their other decks. Bob :THERM :OL :SL :CL :WL

baba-prague	11 Jul 2003
but but but, I thought I saw an amazing site about the RWS and it showed a rather nice back that was certainly very old - though perhaps not the original. I will try and find it, check and put up the link. Meantime, I have voted!

Le_Corsair	11 Jul 2003
Quote: Originally posted by baba-prague but but but, I thought I saw an amazing site about the RWS and it showed a rather nice back that was certainly very old - though perhaps not the original. I will try and find it, check and put up the link. Meantime, I have voted! Karen, on page 6 of the mail-order version of the US Games catalog (#59), there is a description of an "Original Rider-Waite" with "...original Tudor Rose back design..." So Kaplan appears to be talking of the original US Games version only, perhaps? I think my original comments about keeping the deck ugly still apply! Bob :THERM :WL :OL :SL :CL

Silverlotus	11 Jul 2003
When I went shopping for my first tarot deck, many years ago, I turned up my nose at the RWS deck because of the back. For years I used to take a look at them everytime I saw them in a store to see if the backs had changed. They never did, and I never bought a copy. The only RWS deck I own is the tiny Universal Waite, and it has a very nice back. Oddly, the first deck I bought was the Aquarian, and it has a really strange back. But it is better then the RWS one! :P I actually think the tarotee back makes the deck look a little cheap, and like it is nothing more then a playing card deck. (Please, no arguments about how Tarot really is a game!)

Marie	11 Jul 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Le_Corsair Karen, on page 6 of the mail-order version of the US Games catalog (#59), there is a description of an "Original Rider-Waite" with "...original Tudor Rose back design..." I recently got this deck and the backs are very nice. The fronts are a different color though and I haven't decided yet if I like it. Lots of faded greens, beiges, and reds. Instead of flat color they are made up of little dots like in old newspapers. :)Marie

Rusty Neon	11 Jul 2003
http://home.comcast.net/~vilex/Cardbacks.html A lot of different ones to choose from

Le_Corsair	11 Jul 2003
That is a great link, I bookmarked it. Looking at all those beautiful backs makes the current "tarotee" back look even more lame! Bob :THERM :OL :SL :CL :WL

Trogon	11 Jul 2003
Okay... I guess I'm going to have to be the voice of dissent here. I've been hearing people kick around the Rider-Waite-Smith deck for quite a while. The word "ugly" continually crops up in regards to the back design of the deck. Well, if that is your opinion thats fine, but I have to completely disagree with you. To me the back design is not ugly, it really isn't even unattractive. It is, i will admit plain. To me, that blue plaid has a very comfortable feel to it... it feels "homey". It reminds me of the good things associated with a home in the country... open spaces, quiet times, home cooking, animals, trees, grass, the sun rise, and love. It is a the home in the country, the extended family, simple times. That blue plaid is not ugly, it is . And, in fact, the blue plaid backs of the cards was one of the things that prompted me to go with this deck in the first place. I purchased my RWS deck around 10 years ago, and it is still one of my favorites. As for U.S. Games not changing the back design of this deck so other decks would sell; that is a counterintuitive supposition. If the back design made the deck so undesirable, it would not sell. If the deck did not sell, they would not keep printing it and offering it for sale. I would be willing to bet that the "Original Rider-Waite" deck is one of U.S. Games' beter sellers. Again, if it weren't it would have been discontinued years ago... decades ago. One other thing... and this is in no way a personal attack on you or your opinions. Perhaps you might want to consider a slight wording change in your poll? There are undoubtedly people who don't have a strong opinion about the RWS backs... perhaps they don't like the rest of the art work and never bothered looking at the backs... perhaps they are Thoth people, or Tarot de Marseilles people... or perhaps they just don't care about the back designs of the decks they use. Is it fair to label them as "morons"? I won't discuss the term "craven bootlicker"... I don't want to be come across as overly judgemental. ;) Its not a huge deal, but when I saw the wording in your poll, I was a little offended and almost did not respond, but I decided I did want to share my opinion and defend one of my most favorite Tarot decks.

baba-prague	11 Jul 2003
Oh fabulous Rusty, this is the site I was trying to find again. Thanks. Yes, so the "Tudor Rose" isn't that old - but it is quite nice. Anyway, if this site is correct the argument about plaid ("tarotee") being original doesn't really hold. The original seems to be the little brown marbly kind of back (which by the way is similar to the back you often see on really old playing cards here).

Le_Corsair	11 Jul 2003
(muzzle applied by moderator) mmff hmmff! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Quote: Originally posted by Trogon One other thing... and this is in no way a personal attack on you or your opinions. Perhaps you might want to consider a slight wording change in your poll? There are undoubtedly people who don't have a strong opinion about the RWS backs... perhaps they don't like the rest of the art work and never bothered looking at the backs... perhaps they are Thoth people, or Tarot de Marseilles people... or perhaps they just don't care about the back designs of the decks they use. Is it fair to label them as "morons"? I won't discuss the term "craven bootlicker"... I don't want to be come across as overly judgemental. ;) Its not a huge deal, but when I saw the wording in your poll, I was a little offended and almost did not respond, but I decided I did want to share my opinion and defend one of my most favorite Tarot decks.

WolfSpirit	11 Jul 2003
I don't even know what the back looks like of the rider-waites you have. I have a "Dutch version" rider-waite (keywords in Dutch), first deck I ever bought and the only tarot deck for sale for miles around as far as I know. It is not even a laminated deck and the back is...off-white with a very small red-brown ankh-symbol on it. A blue back looks perfectly fine to me ! :)

Jeannette	11 Jul 2003
Okay, I'll bravely be the first one to select the "...I'm a moron" option. Card backs? You mean tarot cards have backs? I've always been too busy looking at the pretty pictures on the other side to notice... Just never been a "back person," I'm afraid. ;) -- Jeannette http://www.tarotgarden.com

felicityk	11 Jul 2003
Hear, hear, Jeannette. I guess I'm a moron too. ;) Felicity

Macavity	11 Jul 2003
Quote: I spoke to Mr. Kaplan regarding the back design on the Rider Tarot... [snip] There are no plans to change the back design of the Rider Tarot at this time. :laugh: Heheh... Did I work for U.S. Games in a previous lifetime? }) Useful link to the "backs". Mine are "Original RWS Deck reprint -1993" :P Macavity "I'm very intelligent, I'm amazingly strong. Believe you me, I'm very much respected in the place I live in!" (Lisa - BB/UK)

Moongold	11 Jul 2003
I quite like the current backs (blue plaid) as well. They symbolize the time the deck was published and I really like that notion. Tarot is about symbols after all :) Don't you think it is the images on the cards which are really important, not the backs? I'm a shameless admirer of Pixie Colman Smith who was the artist of the RWS deck, and am also appreciative of tradition. The backs don't really concern me. Many blessings

Alobar	11 Jul 2003
i voted "No Opinion", as i really don't pay much attention to either side of the RWS. but i have to agree with those who feel that the backs are as unimportant as a really unimportant thing. unless you're main interest is collecting, then the information you're buying the deck for is on the front! if the backs can sway your opinion so easily, then the deck must not really grab you in the first place.

Dark Inquisitor	11 Jul 2003
[quote]Originally posted by Trogon [b] *** To me, that blue plaid has a very comfortable feel to it... it feels "homey". It reminds me of the good things associated with a home in the country... open spaces, quiet times, home cooking, animals, trees, grass, the sun rise, and love. It is a the home in the country, the extended family, simple times. That blue plaid is not ugly, it is . __Trogon, I love you madly,-- but the reason you feel this way is because the back of those cards is a dead ringer for grandpa's old bathrobe !! I have been labeling that pattern Bad Bathrobe for a year now. All the things you mention are nice, but not for the supernatural journey I like a tarot reading to be. ***One other thing... and this is in no way a personal attack on you or your opinions. Perhaps you might want to consider a slight wording change in your poll? Is it fair to label them as "morons"? I won't discuss the term "craven bootlicker"... I don't want to be come across as overly judgemental. ;) Its not a huge deal, but when I saw the wording in your poll, I was a little offended and almost did not respond, but I decided I did want to share my opinion and defend one of my most favorite Tarot decks. __Let's try to remember we are talking about cards. Not your momma. Cards. It's ok. When we can't have fun anymore, there is no longer any reason for all of us to be here. When we take things too seriously & want to take away the right of another to express themselves freely-- when we all have to watch our language & demeanor & tone so closely we cannot feel at home, what are we doing here? Do we want to come here & feel like we are at a formal dinner with Queen Elizabeth? We have to try to look at the context & the spirit rather than feeling personally attacked by things that are not personally directed at us at all. I am absolutely certain that Le_Corsair loves you madly too , Trogon ! I think they were just practicing the fine art of bs-ing with your buddies. Tarotphelia

SingingTarot	11 Jul 2003
Well, for some people backs matter and for some it doesn't. I think it's okay to state one's opinion even if not everybody agrees. I mean we have another thread named "decks you love to hate" where everybody gets to NAME the deck they hate. Can be hurtful for some people whose most favorite deck gets trashed. And we all seem to be able to deal with it. What is different here? I personally never really cared about the back of the cards because I am too busy with the front, untill I bought this one deck named... never mind, wrong thread... As far as the "craven bootlicker" comment I think Le_Corsair was just trying to make a joke. Am I the only one to think it was funny? Gosh I must be twisted, or just plain off key. I would like to quote the comic Get fuzzy: Rob- " You're really close-minded, even for a CAT." Bucky Cat- "I'm not close minded. You're just WRONG" Alice

Trogon	11 Jul 2003
Ah well... as it was said, we should be able to freely express our opinions. I was simply expressing mine... in what I hoped was a reasonable manner. I was simply saying that the way those two particular comments were written, they could be offensive. And yes, we should be able to be humerous... no problem with humor... I've got a funny bone wide enough to match my pratt. Butt (ah hem) :rolleyes: since opinions were being freely expressed, I simply expressed mine. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. [edited to add;] However, I guess, in retrospect, it might have been much better to send the secondary comments about the poll itself in a PM rather than airing my opinion openly. For that, I apologize to all concerned, especially Le_Corsair...

jmd	11 Jul 2003
I voted the last option, though without the qualifying parentheses ;) I would have thought that the designs of the cards by Waite and Colman-Smith were only of their frontal images, and that the back design was probably left to the people at Rider to determine... but I could of course be wrong. With many modern decks, this is of course not the case. In some cases, this is also the only true totally free option the artist has if they wish to remain true to a tradition (witness the absolutely divine obverse of the Hadar rendition of the Marseille). In any case, if the back changes for the Waite/Colman-Smith, it won't alter the creators' artistic output - unless, unbeknownest to me, either or both of them were involved in deciding as to what back the cards were to have.

Sulis	12 Jul 2003
I voted for the no opinion option. I don`t own an original Rider Waite deck and have no plans to get one so I don`t really care what the backs are like. It`s still the most popular deck on the market though so the backs can`t be that offensive surely. Love and light Crystalmynx xx

Little Baron	12 Jul 2003
I understand a little of everybody's points here (sitting on the fence is such a safe place to be!!!) I have the original blue backed deck and am in two minds about the backs importance. Yes, I definitely agree that the front is what is important. It is what, after all, helped me learn the tarot above all other decks I use now. On the other hand, since I am interested in art and design, it is not my most favourite back from all of the decks I have seen. The link offered here, I had seen before. I was going to post it if somebody else did not. There are some lovely backs shown there. Personally, the 1999 Glow In The Dark is one of my favourites. At the end of the day, The Rider Waite is one of my faves, due to its depth and symbolism. I read for a friend last night and the response was shockingly accurate for both of us. I don't think either of us really had much interest in what the card backs looked like since it was the turning them over to their images which was of key importance and working together to find answers. Having said all of this (this is me offering a view on the other side of the argument), when I buy a suit, I choose one that fits how I want it to, is the right colour, design, cut and fabric to my choices and personality. I DO always look at the lining. If it had a lining that I did not like, that was garish or over complicated, was the wrong colour or what I might consider 'as dull' this would influence my choice of suit. Once I am wearing it, people only see what is on the outside so why should it matter???? Yaboot

MeeWah	12 Jul 2003
Interesting poll. I voted for "No, it's fine the way it is". At the risk of sounding redundant--the backs of cards do not matter to me but what is on the fronts does. The back is useful for identifying a deck when its cards are viewed from the back The plaid design is part of the deck's history; changing it does not particularly appeal to me. For a deck designer the view may be different as it seems most contemporary deck designers are involved also in what appears on the back. I do not know that the RWS back was the choice of Pamela Colman Smith &/or Waite nor of the then publisher, but I tend to think it was the latter. It always puzzled me that the publisher affixed its name to the deck (the "Rider" part) & it has stuck, unless that is a reference to the particular edition/version. The deck is one of my favourites & is my "old reliable"--but different strokes for different folks!

jema	13 Jul 2003
I love the backs of the RW deck I got, but mine is swedish and seems like it is really different then yours. the one I got is a dark midnight-blue with a golden rose-cross on it. I usually like the simple patterns myself, like the fournier marsielle.

truthsayer	13 Jul 2003
what the rws backs look like doesn't bother me. i'm more interested in what the fronts look like. if the backs are respecting past history of the backs, then i can accept that a good enough reason. **those boots taste awful!**LOL ;)

BoomVoom	14 Jul 2003
well the poles seem to be in favor of chainging it. and i totaly agree. i've always seen the plade backs as a cheep escape for card manufacturers. just seams like they can't be bothered to get sombody to make backs that can go with the fronts. the whole tradition thing sounds like bunk to me, as it was established (earlier in the thread) that when they were first made they had diferent backs. a lot of Lenormand decks also have this nasty plade back. i can only think that this is because at the time the first started to get published in large quantity, the publishers were afraid not to make much profet so they cut down on the price of printing, by printing on card that already came with a plade pettern on the back, so as only to have to print on one side. BoomVoom

littlegreen	15 Jul 2003
Le_Corsair - LOLOL Well done you for getting us smiling here. Sorry your views can't be heard. As for the poll - yup, the awful pretend tartan back - who on EARTH designed that - (an Americanl ooking for their Scaaaaattish roots?) - but, more interestingly - who thought it would be the best card back for a tarot pack? lgx

Rusty Neon	15 Jul 2003
Since it _is_ a Rider deck after all, maybe US Games should use the' "Rider back". :) http://www.areyougame.com/Interact/item.asp?itemno=UC808-R-1

Dark Inquisitor	16 Jul 2003
I really wish that as a kind of tribute to the deck itself , USG would issue a splendid new edition with incredible backs , intricate borders, & lovely keepsake commemorative tarot casket. And a computer re-do that would give the cards incredible depth & make them seem almost 3D. Like looking in a time window. Kind of kick the whole thing up to a new level if possible. But without junking up the original artwork with modern artist alterations. While of course keeping the old editions on the market for those who are bonded to tradition. Tarotphelia

Demonesse	16 Jul 2003
Ahh, the RWS back sure is lukewarm, milksop, insipid - take your pick! I suppose classical does not always imply beauty. But that's just my opinion...and I'm definitely not an RWS fan either! :) In light of Tarotphelia's great sounding "dream deck back", take a look at a couple of interesting Talking Tarot threads about what people consider to be nice/ugly backs: http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8444 http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5077 For the RWS, I would imagine something like a coat of arms/shield for the back would be nice...

Kiama	16 Jul 2003
I agree the RWS backs aren't exactly wonderful or exciting... But sometimes when I get a deck with wonderful and exciting backs, it seems as though more time was spent on the backs than fronts! I also find that in a reading, when I am shuffling a deck with gorgeous, breathtaking backs, the querent will always make some sort of comment on it... To me, this is detrimental, as whilst I am shuffling, I am concentrating on the question and sorting out in my own mind what spread I will use, etc, and what questions the querent has asked. If the querent breaks into that valuable silence time with... "Oh wow! Those backs are soooooo wonderful!" I lose all concentration and get very annoyed. Other than that, I don't use the RWs for readings, though I don't really care what my reading deck's backs look like... They're hardly ever seen anyway! I voted though, for keeping the deck the way it is, simply because that back has become identified with that deck. Kiama

Silverlotus	18 Jul 2003
Getting back to the assurtion made in the letter from US Games that the "bathrobe" pattern is the orginal, in Tarot Encyclopedia vol III, pg. 1, Stuart Kaplan says the backs of the first deck were "a brown pebble pattern." So, I guess they really were just talking about US Game's original back, not the deck's original back. BTW, I love the comment about the blue backs looking like a bathrobe. :)

raeanne	21 Jul 2003
Hi all, I was wondering if anyone has done any research on the plaid pattern itself. I remember hearing something about different tartan patterns beng associated with different tribes in Scotland. Do they have any special meanings other than clan identification?

Le_Corsair	22 Jul 2003
Quote: Originally posted by raeanne Hi all, I was wondering if anyone has done any research on the plaid pattern itself. I remember hearing something about different tartan patterns beng associated with different tribes in Scotland. Do they have any special meanings other than clan identification? According to my copy of Obscure Clans and Septs of Ancient Scotland by Hoakes MacIntosh (1929), the plaid pattern shown on the backs of RWS decks is identified as the dress tartan of the MacAroney clan, (white in a tartan usually designates a "dress" or "formal" pattern), whose members fled to Italy after the 1715 rebellion. Rather than "tribes," tartans are associated with particular clans. Apparently tartans were developed to allow Scotsmen to differentiate between friend and foe when fighting each other; when fighting Englishmen, no tartan was necessary, you simply killed anyone wearing trousers instead of a kilt. Hope this helps. ;) Bob :THERM

littlegreen	22 Jul 2003
Thank you SO much for your intelligent post, as always, Le Corsair! You save me doing all that research. Is it true that the man who invented McDonald's in the States (Mr McDonald!) based the colours of his first restaurant on his own family clan's tartan? (It's just I have a faint memory of reading something like that on the back of my nephew's Happy Meal when the family came over to visit) Hoots! and Cheers!

DarkElectric	22 Jul 2003
Hey! I'm an American searching for my Scottish roots, and there is NO WAY I would ever design a card back like that! And if I were to put my family tartan on the back of a deck, I'd have to call it the "Ryder Waite a Minute, I can really give you a good deal on this 1987 Pontiac" deck.

baba-prague	23 Jul 2003
The plaid pattern used on the RWS backs is in fact very similar to one that my Great Aunt had on what she called her "pinny" when I was a child. It's a fact that one of the few books she had in the house (apart from several of Andrew Lang's fairy story collections - for which I'll always be grateful to her) was a little book on the origins of Scottish tartans. She was herself Irish but married to a Scot and so was mildly interested in these things. I never asked her if her chosen pinny pattern was in some way significant. She was a wonderful and amazing woman but her cooking was legendary in the family for its awfulness, so the plaid was at least a distraction from the food (we had plaid napkins too, but that was Black Watch so probably not relevant to this conversation). Er - not sure if that ramble helped? What I can do is confirm that Le Corsair is right in saying that white indicates a dress tartan. It would be interesting to consider the fact that Samuel Liddel MacGregor Mathers was of course partly of Scottish origin, and was strongly influenced in this youth by another Scot - Kenneth Mackenzie - http://www.hermeticgoldendawn.org/Documents/Bios/mathers.htm - except for the inescapable fact that the first RWS cards had brown pebbly backs (reference to Scottish streams perhaps? ;-)) Over to you Le Corsair...

Trogon	23 Jul 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Le_Corsair According to my copy of Obscure Clans and Septs of Ancient Scotland by Hoakes MacIntosh (1929), the plaid pattern shown on the backs of RWS decks is identified as the dress tartan of the MacAroney clan, (white in a tartan usually designates a "dress" or "formal" pattern), whose members fled to Italy after the 1715 rebellion. Oh ho! I'll bet this must be why I so dearly love my RWS card backs! Why this clan is absolutely my favorite of all the clans... They are the ones who really made me fall in love with Scottish/Italian cooking...

baba-prague	23 Jul 2003
This seems pretty definitive. It's from http://www.mythographica.fsnet.co.uk/t/rw/print.htm (apologies if someone's already mentioned this, but I think we haven't had this link on this thread.) ___________ It would appear that the printing history of the Rider-Waite deck, excluding pirated editions, is as follows:- A - First Issue December, 1909, brown pebbled back. B - Second Issue April, 1910, Tudor Rose back, also described as mosaic, printed on superior card. C - Pictorial Key illustrations, 1910. D - A.G. Muller deck, 1972, based on C, tartan back printed in blue and black. F - Original Rider Waite, 1993, a copy of B, with blue Tudor rose back. ___________ So seems as though this tartan is actually Swiss in origin! Are you quite sure, Le Corsair, that the family emigrated to Italy? edited to add - and just to get back on track (ho hum) if USG really want to be true to the historical deck - and can't bear the brown marbly back (I have some old oracle cards with this back and it is a bit uninspiring to be honest - the only plus in its favour being that it doesn't show the dirt) then why not go back to the 1910 Tudor Rose? (sorry - bit English the Tudor Rose, no Scots reference at all - but it is authentic AND attractive).

littlegreen	23 Jul 2003
"A cement mixer collided with a prison van on the Kingston By-Pass. Motorists are asked to be on the lookout for 16 hardened criminals"

Kaz	23 Jul 2003
say what, littlegreen ??? *not understanding at all what you are talking about here* can i have subtitles please ? ~kaz

Trogon	30 Jul 2003
Just to add a little bit to this discussion... I had been pondering the question of why doesn't U.S. Games change the RWS if so many people seem to dislike the backs? So I sent an E-mail to U.S. Games customer support about this issue and asked them about how this deck compared with their other Tarot decks in sales. Their reply; Quote: Dear Mr. Trogon : Thank you for your email. US Games has no plans on re-designing the back of the Rider Waite tarot deck. In fact, it is the Bestselling tarot deck in the world and, obviously, outsells all of our other decks. It is a very popular deck Thanks for your interest US Games Customer Services Just thought you all might be interested... It at least explains why there is no plans to change the backs, or any other part of the deck. It sells too well as it is.

baba-prague	30 Jul 2003
Yes, it's fair enough really. However, I don't suppose any of us here really thought we would get US Games to do a redesign (though who knows?) but it's just good to discuss how we feel about the backs. It's like a lot of things that sell well, they aren't necessarily as good as we'd like them to be but because there is no alternative, we buy them and use them - and they aren't exactly bad, jut not wonderful. Personally I have a very inexpensive Czech version of the RWS because until I can buy one I really value, I didn't see the point of paying more for one of the popular/mass versions (colour repro isn't wonderful either in most of them btw). I am gradually building up a pack of the Hoi Polloi (almost there now :-) ) so I will use that eventually - it may not be beautiful, but it is quirky and interesting and it has a bit of the "arts and crafts" spirit of Pamela Coleman's work. By the way, I love the whole arts and crafts spirit (in which everything was done with care, practicality and a sense of aesthetics ) but that's getting a bit off-thread.

Le_Corsair	30 Jul 2003
Quote: Originally posted by baba-prague However, I don't suppose any of us here really thought we would get US Games to do a redesign (though who knows?) but it's just good to discuss how we feel about the backs. It's like a lot of things that sell well, they aren't necessarily as good as we'd like them to be but because there is no alternative, we buy them and use them - and they aren't exactly bad, jut not wonderful. I'll post again here (collective shudder from the community), and say that although I have been hard on US Games for not changing the RWS backs, I DO have to admit that they give us a full range of variants: the Albano-Waite, the Universal Waite, Diamond Tarot, Golden Rider, Quick & Easy, Glow-in-the-dark, Original Rider-Waite, and the upcoming Radiant Rider-Waite. I still hold with my original theory that by leaving the RWS as ugly as it is (my opinion!), they encourage sales of the variants to dissatisfied newcomers to the Tarot world. Bob :THERM

littlegreen	30 Jul 2003
...from our man in the sky. Yes, hmm, that Glow-in-the-Dark Tarot - guess the backs of that one could be as ugly as you like.

The Ugly RWS backs thread was originally posted on 11 Jul 2003 in the Tarot Decks board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Tarot Decks, or read more archived threads.