Tarot Deck Sizes...

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 20 Feb 2005, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Joermit	20 Feb 2005
I was wondering on everyone's thoughts on the sizes of various decks... I use the commercial edition of the Gilded and find its dimensions perfect for me. I can easily riffle the deck (the way in which I clear it) and cut and spread the cards smoothly. I ask this question specifically with the impending releases of the DruidCraft Tarot and the Tarot of Dreams, both decks which I'm eagerly anticipating. I understand the DruidCraft is fairly large and Mr. Marchetti has also indicated the that TOD will be larger than the Gilded... my concern is that I won't be able to riffle the cards and handle them as easily... does anybody who currently owns the the DruidCraft (I've pre-ordered mine off Amazon) have problems with its size? do the dimension of the cards matter to anyone else?

FaerieStorm	20 Feb 2005
I purchased the DruidCraft some time ago from Amazon UK. The deck is larger than the standard Llewellyn deck, but I enjoy the larger size because I can see the detail of the images much more clearly. Furthermore, the deck is not so big that you can't shuffle it, and they have a slick finish, so shuffling is quite easy. Frankly, I hope that the Tarot of Dreams IS larger than the Gilded for the same reason: detail.

HudsonGray	20 Feb 2005
I asked this question a while ago on several tarot lists when I was trying to figure out how large to make my cards. I thought 4 to a page would be good, but so many people commented that they wanted SMALL because of difficulty shuffling, arthritis, hard to handle with small hands, and many reasons, that we went with 8 to a standard size page instead when we had the deck printed up. The 'small' request was overwhelming from 4 different lists (I got a lot of feedback!). I've tried using cards as big as the Victoria Regina and had a lot of trouble shuffling those. When my thumb tendon acted up it was PAINFUL to shuffle even a Robin Wood size deck, the Mary Hanson Roberts deck was far easier to handle then.

Keslynn	20 Feb 2005
As Yoda says "Size matters not." Except with tarot decks, it does. I have the Druidcraft as well, and I have a lot of trouble shuffling it. In fact, I usually have to have my neighbor do it. She has more practice handling that deck. I love the images, but I definitely use it less than I would if it were smaller. I'm waiting for the American release. I might actually try trimming for the very first time. :) Kes

Athara	20 Feb 2005
I like small. The Gilded is just about right and so is the Spiral (though I can't read with that one... yet). The Lo Scarabeo ones would be fine if it weren't for the borders where the translation are printed. But I don't really have the guts for trimming yet. I had the Rohrig in my hands this week. Now that one's HUGE! ;) There's something to say for the detail argument though. I wouldn't mind if the TOD was slightly bigger, because I find the drawings simply stunning (those of the Gilded too, btw). Choices, choices. It should be big enough for the details to show, but not so big that it makes shuffling uncomfortable. I have Fibromyalgia, so shuffling will be a problem anyways. But I'm rambling on. Time for bed. :)

Logiatrix	20 Feb 2005
Hi, Joermit...and welcome! Size is no longer an issue for me, because I don't riffle-shuffle my cards anymore. Back in my "riffling" days, I did prefer smallish decks for ease of shuffling, like the Zerner-Farber or Wonderland (those both measure in at about two inches wide and four inches top-to-bottom). Then, when I stubbornly insisted on using a large deck (the Light & Shadow), I discovered that I could still shuffle the cards side-ways. However, HudsonGray mentioned the Victoria Regina, one that I couldn't shuffle, either. It's too long to shuffle top-to-bottom, and also too narrow too shuffle side-ways. Lots of Llewellyn decks are in that size range (almost four inches wide and over 5 inches in length), though they're still bigger than the regular sized US Games selections or the LoScarabeo art decks. Most of the decks I adore and insist on using are too big for my hands, so now I just swish and mix the cards around on a flat surface, until I consider them "shuffled" enough. :)

Lillie	20 Feb 2005
I have very small hands, but I like big decks. They are hard to shuffel, but I usually find a way to manage. I'm just impressed by the bigness. Little cards always look unimpressive, like ordinary playing cards.

RedMaple	20 Feb 2005
although I like the large decks for the detail, and for use with children, I like the small decks that can easily fit in a bag or pocket, and don't take up much room. But if a deck is too big, I can always trim it. I think the Druidcraft could be trimmed -- doesn't it have a rather wide border? So if you love it, but find it too big, take the big step and trim it. I have several decks I rarely used that I now use regularly because I trimmed them.

crystal cove	20 Feb 2005
I like the minis, size wise. It seems like it would be awkward, but it's very comfortable for me. I have a mini Grimaud Marseille that I use more than I'd like just because of the size. If I could get every deck that small, I would.

magpie9	20 Feb 2005
I like the size of the Gilded, and it's ease of shuffling very much. It's about a perfect shuffle for me. I have trouble shuffling anything bigger than the Sacred Circle. I shuffle all decks sideways riffle, at this point--arthritis. I find the DruidCraft really really hard to shuffle..it tends to go in clumps, and isn't really sllck enough. Plus, it's just so big..great for the pics, tough on the hands.

tinkerbell	21 Feb 2005
i adore my druidcraft but i got so fed up with not being able to shuffle it properly that i cut the borders off! i used v sharp scissors and it took about 2 days. i attempted to trim the corners with nail clippers but made a bit of a hash of it so i bought some proper corner cutters and now the cards look great! there is a thread somewhere on here where somebody else trimmed the borders off various decks and posted before and after photos- the druidcraft was one of those featured, i'm sure. the cards are far easier to shuffle now, (and coming from one who LOVES to shuffle, that's no bad thing! love tink xx

Grizabella	21 Feb 2005
Smaller is definitely better for me! I'd love it if all decks were about the size of the Hanson Roberts. I'd probably have a lot more decks in my collection then.

similia	21 Feb 2005
I really like the larger cards, even when a bit tricky to shuffle. Small cards seem too like playing cards, and the really attractive decks look great in the larger size. I guess even the largest cards can always be fanned out, and picked one at a time.

Sulis	21 Feb 2005
I prefer smaller decks. I bought the DruidCraft and trimmed off the white borders straight away because it was too large for me to shuffle. It's much better now and it still has the stone coloured border and the card titles. I'd advise anyone who thinks this deck is too big to get their sissors out. The borders make the cards look like windows into another world. Love Sulis xx

Stregaverde	21 Feb 2005
I have long fingers and no problem shuffling the big decks, but after a week or two of using the Housewive's and Hanson-Roberts as my main decks instead of the BBC, I've noticed that I shuffle the larger cards more awkwardly. I think it's honestly a matter of practice for many people, more so than actual inability to shuffle. Personally I'd like to get more well versed in other methods of shuffling--I always riffle, but now that I'm getting decks that have more value, I don't want to be bending them. I've noticed that my HR is getting a bit warped. :(

contrascarpe	21 Feb 2005
I used to prefer the smaller decks, if only because I know some of my Seekers have a difficult time with the shuffling. But I have come to prefer the larger for most. The images stand out more and some decks MUST be bigger. I have fairly big hands so shuffling is not typically a problem, but I do have a couple of decks that can be challenging to riffle. Dan

tarotbear	21 Feb 2005
I have large hands so I don't have a hard time with large cards (other than ol' Mr. Arthritis giving me a pain), I just think that Tarot cards in the 'standard' size is more workable - no bigger than 2.5" x 5" or 3" x 5".

RedMaple	21 Feb 2005
Lyric wrote: Smaller is definitely better for me! I'd love it if all decks were about the size of the Hanson Roberts. I'd probably have a lot more decks in my collection then. Trimming the borders off the decks makes decks much closer to the HR size. I've got a trimmed Spiral, Crystal, Nigel Jackson, and actually, I even trimmed my HR lol just because I wanted to see them without the borders. I highly recommend it if you'd like the size to be smaller, and the intensity of the images is much greater without the borders, too. But I also have decks I would never trim that are larger -- the Inner Child, for example, is large and wonderfully so. My grandchild loves to play with it and make up stories. I will never trim my Tarot de Prague or my Golden, both are perfect as they are. And initially I thought I might trim the Gilded (horrors!) but I find I really like the gems and the way they look like nodes between the cards. I haven't trimmed my Victoria Regina, either, but I never use it. I wonder if I'd use it more if it weren't so big. I don't know. I did get a few good readings from the deck when I first had it, but the images are way too cold for me, so it's hard to tell if it's size or color or image that's the problem. Contrascarpe -- what are some of the big decks you like for their bigness?

contrascarpe	21 Feb 2005
RedMaple wrote: Contrascarpe -- what are some of the big decks you like for their bigness? RedMaple - I am a bit brain fried right now, so hopefully I can be coherent, hehe. The one that stands out in my mind first is the Margarete Petersen. There is so much embedded deep within her paintings that it takes a large card to have a chance of drawing them out. I will have to sit in front of our Tarot alter when I get home from this trip to remind myself. Perhaps Gardener will chance upon this thread and weigh in - she loooooooves big cards. Dan

WolfyJames	21 Feb 2005
I have tiny hands and arthritis and yet, I prefer big decks. To me, seeing the art is what is the most important. I need to see well the cards to make a good reading. Some of my decks are just too small, especially the Legend. I think publishers should make two sizes of their decks to please everyone: oversize and small. Lo Scarabeo publishes, for some of their decks, a small version as well. This is what publishers should do. I could get my oversize decks while some others could get their small ones, and some could even get both sizes.

magpie9	21 Feb 2005
WolfyJames wrote: I have tiny hands and arthritis and yet, I prefer big decks. To me, seeing the art is what is the most important.... snip ....I could get my oversize decks while some others could get their small ones, and some could even get both sizes. Yes, exactly--it comes down to the art for me, too. I'd love it if all decks came in those 2 sizes--I'd probably get both in any deck I loved! What good idea!!

Joermit	21 Feb 2005
Thanks for all the comments! everyone seems to really have their own preferences as far as size and I can imagine it difficult for publishers to try and accomodate all... like I said I think the dimensions of the Gilded are perfect... I may be even to go a bit larger as I do have long fingers... and I agree I like the larger cards for their detail.. I ahve a mini Hanson Roberts and a pocket Universal Waite.. I like both decks but they don't jive all that well for me reading wise just yet... because they're smaller, they're actually more difficult for me to shuffle/riffle! it's odd! now as far as trimming... does that somehow damage the cards and make them more prone to damage??

Keslynn	22 Feb 2005
Well, the problem with many of the larger decks is that most of the extra size is because of large borders rather than increasing the size of the artwork. I've found that to be especially true of the Druidcraft. I like the size of the artwork, but if they just left it at that, then I would still be able to shuffle the deck! I wonder who decides the thickness of the borders and size of the cards? Is it more the artist or the publisher? :) Kes

RedMaple	22 Feb 2005
Joermit wrote: Thanks for all the comments! everyone seems to really have their own preferences as far as size and I can imagine it difficult for publishers to try and accomodate all... like I said I think the dimensions of the Gilded are perfect... I may be even to go a bit larger as I do have long fingers... and I agree I like the larger cards for their detail.. I ahve a mini Hanson Roberts and a pocket Universal Waite.. I like both decks but they don't jive all that well for me reading wise just yet... because they're smaller, they're actually more difficult for me to shuffle/riffle! it's odd! now as far as trimming... does that somehow damage the cards and make them more prone to damage?? Not with the ones I've trimmed. The cards come out beautiful, and there's a special tool for rounding the corners. They do not have quite the smoothness of a die-cut card, but I find them very comfortable to shuffle and hold. And the artwork is improved tremendously -- colors are ususally more intense without the borders. There's a few threads on this if you care to do a search.

RedMaple	22 Feb 2005
magpie9 wrote: Yes, exactly--it comes down to the art for me, too. I'd love it if all decks came in those 2 sizes--I'd probably get both in any deck I loved! What good idea!! Yes, and it'd be great to have the two sizes -- one to carry, one to study...

Joermit	22 Feb 2005
Thanks for the reply RedMaple! I'm not gonna trim my Gilded as I'm okay with the size... and I love it... it's the perfect deck for me right now.... I do sometimes wish the card size stayed the same and the image extended to the edge... I've seen a couple decks that are borderless, with the artwork groing right to the edge and the cards only having a number/unobtrusize title... I can't recall specific decks like this however... does anybody know of any truly borderless decks?? ones that were printed that way and didn't require any trimming... I tried a search on it and couldn't come up with any results... I also wish that there was a mini Gilded.. one that could be easily carried in a pocket... I have a mini Hanson Roberts that is a very portable size and well made card... I really don't read with that deck yet (I just need more practice with it!)

Keslynn	22 Feb 2005
The Morgan-Greer and Buckland Romani decks are borderless. I believe the Buckland is out of print, but the Morgan-Greer is fairly common. In fact, there's a recent thread about it. :) Kes

magpie9	23 Feb 2005
The Celtic Wisdom deck by Caitlin Matthews is also borderless, and very beautiful.

gollog	23 Feb 2005
Although in bigger cards you can the details more clearly, I prefer the smaller versions. I have a pocket raider waite and it shuffles so nicely, but the tiny tarot is to small for me. I would actually love to have one in between the sizes of the two I mentioned, to carry around. I also like that the smaller ones don't take so much room when laying out a spread, since I don't have a 'proper' place to layout my cards. And I must add that I have the small (pocket) version of the Toth as well, but this one would definitely better if it was al little bigger. To much detail en too busy pictures for a small format.

NightWing	24 Feb 2005
Hmmmn. I guess we are getting to be somewhat...geriatric, in our card choices. I have some decks that are large or even very large; the better to see the art, like Tavaglione's "Star" Tarot, -but are getting harder to handle. There are a few that are okay in size, but the art almost vanishes, like the standard Gendron Tarot deck. Increasingly, we are seeing "mini" decks issued, like recent ones by Lo Scarabeo, that are almost too small to handle regularly. Then (and here I sound even more like Goldilocks), there are those tarot decks that are sized just right. These include, IMHO, Kazanlar, Hanson-Roberts, Spiral, and especially Knapp-Hall. The new pocket Universal Waite goes here too. As I age, this latter catagory looms in importance. Thankfully, the Thoth deck comes in at least three distinct sizes!

Emily	26 Feb 2005
My first large deck was the Victoria Regina - as soon as I opened the box I knew I wouldn't be able to shuffle them, I was very disappointed. My hands are on the small size and I found that decks I liked were too large to shuffle in the way I was used to. I hated having to check the size of a deck I would have liked and then not buying it because it was larger than standard. Something had to change, so I did. I bought the large Thoth and learned a new way to shuffle. I really struggle using this deck to read with but it I can shuffle it. :D I don't look at the size of a deck now, I can handle any size - Even the DruidCraft which is a deck I'm becoming very fond of is too big for me to shuffle normally so I shuffle the new way. I hold the bottom of the deck in my left hand and shuffle top over top with my right hand. Takes a bit of practise but once learned it becomes an easy way to shuffle large decks. :)

The Tarot Deck Sizes... thread was originally posted on 20 Feb 2005 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.