Card Backs

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 19 Sep 2004, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Glaucus	19 Sep 2004
How important are the designs on the backs of Tarot to you? I find that these dictate a large part of my interest in the deck's contents, as well as whether to buy the deck itself. I find this criterion appeals mostly to people who like to meditate before using the cards. Of course this is entirely subjective aesthetics. Whenever I first open a deck, I take it out of the box facedown and contemplate the back for several minutes before shuffling. The Universal Waite's starry background was what inspired me to purchase it as my first deck over the Rider with that boring crosshatch design. I never get tired of looking at the patterns of the little gold stars. I tend to shy away from decks whose backs are too 'busy'. The Cosmic Tribe Tarot, although a great deck itself, has a back that just makes my eyes water with all the busy detail, symmetrical though it is. Same goes for the Love is in the Earth crystal Tarot. I find it rather annoying when if all the other cards didn't carry the design, you'd swear it was an individual Tarot card in itself. Especially horrendous is Love is in Earth, whose back is so detailed and unique that the author actually DID use it as an extra Tarot card! How pompous is that?! I like to think of a Tarot card back, or even ordinary playing cards at that, like a door. When you're facing the door and it's easy on the eyes and still attractive, you're drawn to know what's hidden on the other side. But if the door is plastered with colourful fliers and screaming slogans about what's inside, you might be inclined to pass it on by from its predictability.

fyreflye	19 Sep 2004
A pretty unusual approach but I can appreciate your feeling. One thing a card's back demonstrates is how seriously its designer took the project. The backs of the Crowley Thoth, Clark's Magickal Tarot, the Hermetic Tarot; and the Baghwan Shree Rajneesh signature on the backs of the Osho Zen Tarot cards; are not what you will normally see on the everyday commercial tarot deck. Something more than marketing considerations went into these decks, and even the card backs show it.

Gerbear	19 Sep 2004
I think of the card back as a continuation of the artwork. It adds to the appeal, but a 'bad back' doesn't detract from it. I wonder sometimes what was going through the artist's head when they thought of some of these backs, or whether they had full control of the content. I've never used an external object for meditation, but it's an interesting concept.

rabble	19 Sep 2004
A back I didn't like would put me off a deck, I think. I like reversible backs too. Even though the osho zen doesn't have a reversible back, it's currently my favourite deck. But I have to shuffle it the right way up. I can't bear the curve to curve the wrong way. I even made my bag for that deck to match the backs, rather than the card designs themselves!

Ace	19 Sep 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Glaucus How important are the designs on the backs of Tarot to you? I find that these dictate a large part of my interest in the deck's contents, as well as whether to buy the deck itself. I never much thought about it really, it is an interesting idea. I will say that much as I LOVE the WorldTree Tarot, the beautiful (and yes, reversable) picture on the back has made some clients and even me shuffle them badly. I think the back is the front of a card, and shuffle them half up and half down!

Nevada	19 Sep 2004
The backs are important to me, too. I especially like the Thoth, Voyager, Crystal, Old Path, and Morgan-Greer, of those I own. I was disappointed in the backs of the Ancient Tarot of Marseilles. To me the back is important, because it's where my gaze tends to rest while I shuffle, when it's important to me to feel balanced and centered. Nevada

ros	19 Sep 2004
I like a nice back on the card. I have the Haindl and that EYE bugs me crazy, so I don't use these to read with.

Glaucus	19 Sep 2004
oh god YES. Nothing's more annoying than having a whole bunch of eyes staring at you. It's not even symmetrical or anything.

Leleii	19 Sep 2004
I notice the backs on cards, I tend to "match" my backs to their bags. I like the Haindl eye on the back of the cards. When I read what the eye represents I represents I appreciate the eye. In the Haindl book (I forget which one) it says that the eye represents pain, you can't gain or learn anything without a little pain. (this is my quote on the quote in the book). My favorite backs are the Gill with the tree of life and the Sakki-Sakki which has a simple, soothing back. Good Thread

HudsonGray	20 Sep 2004
Backs didn't matter much to me, personally, but when I was designing my deck I put the question out there on a few different tarot lists asking others what they wanted to see. It was pretty overwhelming with 'a nice design' and 'reversable', so people had a lot more solid feelings about card backs than I anticipated. There were specific references as to no plaids, no yucky spotted backs, or uninteresting patterns, overdone ones, and ones with an image that was clearly not reversable. And the eye on the Haindl--that does bother me too, but mostly because the corner of the eye is so far drawn down, looks like a tear or something. If it didn't have that part I think I'd feel better about it.

Tarot Sparrow	20 Sep 2004
Sometimes I am not overly pleased with card backs on decks, but I don't let it put me off. I don't read the card backs, after all. I read what's on the other side. I do enjoy the back of my new Gilded, it's quite entrancing. But I think I have to say, surprisingly, that I still enjoy the backing of my first deck, the Hudes Tarot, the best. Here's an image if you're interested :) http://membres.lycos.fr/tarobat/mesjeux/hudes/dos.jpg Oh my, sometimes I forget how much I love that deck!

Sulis	20 Sep 2004
The backs of the cards are important to me. I've definately been put off cards because I can't stand the backs. The 2 decks I use the most are Morgan Greer and World Spirit - I love the back design on both of these decks, they're both non-reversable which bugs me a bit sometimes though - I'd like to find a deck that I love which has a reversable back. Love Sulis xx

littlehermit	20 Sep 2004
Backs matter to me - the ugly tartan on the back of the R-W is one of the reasons I haven't been able to bring myself to think hard about getting it. Of course, these days backs need not just to be simple, elegant, and reversible - they also need to still look good after someone cuts the borders off the cards. :D

Chronata	20 Sep 2004
OK...I admit it...I like the ugly plaid backs on the RWS!! And I know that I am in the minority here! :D I think I like them because when I was a kid...that seemed to be the only kind of back that I saw on Tarot cards...and for me, it was different and exciting...and very different from all the picture backs on all the regular playing cards! I knew, when I saw that plaid...that this was the special deck of cards! I always thought it would be cool to have my own tarot deck have those backs as well(but those USGames blank cards are really hard to draw on!) Nowadays, I do admit to liking some of the prettier backs...the Hanson Roberts and Tarot of Transition come to mind first. As much as I love my Morgan Greer...those stars on the back really bother me...I think they are way too busy.

The 78th Fool	20 Sep 2004
When I first came across the tarot in the James Bond film 'Live and Let Die' about 24 years ago there were two things that enticed me. Firstly, the images on the cards were much more solid, colourful and mysterious than those of normal playing cards. Secondly, the back design. In the film the card backs were red with an interlocking design featuring a 007 motif. This wasn't obvious straight away, you had to look closely. The backs marked these cards out as polished and special; over and above the pink and blue lacework designs traditional to playing card backs at the time. That's what I look for now - something that looks special although I'll admit that's hard to quantify. It will probably be easier if I give you a few examples of my likes and dislikes to illustrate the point. Likes: Gilded Tarot (the perfect back design) Original Rider Waite Tudor Rose back design (The one that proved too difficult to line up on 1910 printing presses and so was abandoned!) This should be on all modern editions. Rohrig Tarot (A surreal mixture of galaxies and water. Awesome) Dislike: Morgan Greer: Those stars are just too in your face! I tolerate them for the sake of a wonderful deck. US Games Generic Tartan backs: The scourge of the standard Rider Waite and Tarot of the Witches. Unneccessary in this day and age!! particularly as both of these decks have wonderful back designs made specifically for them - the Tudor Rose for the Rider and the 007 backs from the James Bond film for the Witches deck. With regards to Tartan - I don't mind it on the Swiss 1jj or the Tarot Classic as the simplicity is well in keeping with the period of the cards. Thankfully, the US Games RWS is really precious to me so I can just about tolerate the Tartan for the sake of a masterpiece! Chris. xx

RedMaple	20 Sep 2004
Card backs matter to me, too. I don't mind them being non-symmetrical, as I read reversals less than I used to. I particularly like the backs of the Universal Waite, gold stars on a deep indigo background. I recently got the Buddha deck and I love the red backs with the Lotus - stunning. They immediately affect my energy level and expectation -- like a visual gong. And yes, the Hudes is a terrific deck, and I do love the backs as well. I find that the back design contributes so much to the overall feel of the deck. It's important to get it right. I love the Morgan Greer deck, and the stars are not bothersome to me, but neither are they powerful. I'd love that deck to have a as powerful a back design as the images on the cards. The blue color is all wrong, not deep enough. I would have liked to see something with roses, or a single rose. It would feel more in keeping with the energy of the deck. Has anyone modified backs of cards? I've modified front designs when I don't like them, and surely you could make a deck and design your own back, and laminate them.....yikes ! am I really suggesting doing this to 78 cards? :)

Ace	20 Sep 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Chronata OK...I admit it...I like the ugly plaid backs on the RWS!! And I know that I am in the minority here! :D I think I like them because when I was a kid...that seemed to be the only kind of back that I saw on Tarot cards...and for me, it was different and exciting...and very different from all the picture backs on all the regular playing cards! I knew, when I saw that plaid...that this was the special deck of cards! I like them too, Chronata! so don't feel so bad. I never related so closely to the tarotee design (did you know it even has a name?) but I find it soothing and easy to look at. I like blue and white too!

xviiirkna	21 Sep 2004
Here's something I've always wondered... Why does it matter if the backs of the cards are reversible or not? Normally, one shuffles the deck and either lays the cards into the spread face up...or lays them out face down and flip them over one by one. Does knowing prior to revealing the card that it's going to be a reversed card (or not) really impact the result of a reading? The cards are still shuffled and dealt in the same way as a deck with reversible backs. The true interpretation of the reading is what is turned over...not in analyzing what direction the backs are facing before you do so. ...or at least to me. It's just never made a difference in my opinion. I don't very often read for other people, so is this something that people watch for and anticipate as you are laying out the cards for them? I'd be genuinely interested to know the reasons people feel strongly about having decks with non-reversible backs. Blessings, Sally Anne

Black*Cat	21 Sep 2004
Yes - backs matter heaps to me. My favourites are the Gilded & the Hadar TdM - both very beautiful. I love the Hudes deck & really like the backs, but wish that it was reversible :) Black*Cat

Flavio	21 Sep 2004
Cards backs are important to me as an integral part of the deck, like the reversible backs even if not always use reversals for my readings. A bad card back is a turn off for a deck, for example I love the Hanson Roberts artwork but I hate cards back because the tone of blue and the look of the design... made me think that desired result was not achieved in the printing process.

ihcoyc	21 Sep 2004
Quote: Originally posted by xviiirkna Why does it matter if the backs of the cards are reversible or not? It is, perhaps, just a superstition. When I shuffle, I always try to avoid seeing what card is on the bottom of the deck. If I see that card, I start my shuffling process over again. Just as it would bother me if I saw clearly what cards are going to come up, it bothers me if I know what cards are unlikely to appear. I prefer instead to be surprised by each card as it actually is brought forth. For that reason, I do not use decks with non-reversible backs for reading. (The only such decks I own are Thoth and Tarot of the Master, neither of which I read with.)

The Card Backs thread was originally posted on 19 Sep 2004 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.