Reaction/thoughts about publishers?

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 23 Apr 2003, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Cerulean	23 Apr 2003
It is funny when one thinks of some of the slants and markets of tarot publishers. Lo Scarabeo started with comics, did some 22 card editions and then expanded (www.Tarotgarden.com---the Riccardo Minetti interview). I haven't read much about AGM Mueller, but they seem to market pop and self-help psychology booklets with theme decks. I don't know how to categorize U.S. Games...perhaps a millionaire with a collector's passion. How would you categorize Llewellyn or other publishers in the tarot market that you would know? And another question--good point, divinerguy--are you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with your book/deck kits?

divinerguy	23 Apr 2003
One of the problems that I see with publishers is that they don't seem to be able to put all the elements of a deck/book set together. Its not any one publisher, I don't think any of them are good at it. The Rider-Waite deck is well conceived, but Colman-Smith's illustrations could've been more refined. The Rohrig is a beautiful deck, and the book's quality is superb. However, there's practically no text in the book, and zero information about what the artist was trying to say. The Gill has great majors, but the pips are the pits. Sacred Rose is nice, but the eyeball thing is just way too weird. Voyager is too busy and the cards are too big. I have yet to see a deck/book set that has done everything right. When I mean everything, it means a usable size, readability without learning a new system, mainstream symbology, conforming themes to card meanings, no crayola artwork, no renumbering or renaming of cards or suits, and a book that actually explains the symbols on the cards (that's a big one).

Emily	24 Apr 2003
The only problem I have with deck/book sets is the way they are packaged. Its been mentioned on here a few times, 9 times out of 10 when you buy a deck/book set, the deck is either loose in the box or in plastic that once you take off nothing is left to protect the deck or even worse an over-sized white cardboard deck box. The Enchanted tarot was probably the worse case of packaging I've every seen, the deck was split into two halfs enclosed in plastic wrap, so once opened the box won't take the whole deck, you still have to split it. The Ancient Egyptian has a recess in the box for the cards but they fall out if the book isn't on top to hold them in. This really aggravates me to the point that if I want a book and deck set now I order the book and deck seperately, that way I know that I will have a box for the deck and not just unwanted packaging.

Diana	24 Apr 2003
I'm surprised that some of the publishers haven't yet started marketing little plastic figurines made in China (much cheaper there). Sort of like Harry Potter. The market has truly not been exploited to its fullest. Also they could make mugs with people's favourite Tarot cards on them. For your breakfast tea or coffee you could choose "The Queen of Cups" or the "King of Cups" depending on your gender. And then of course there's cosmetics they could get into as well. Imagine a male perfume called "The Knight of Wands". That would turn women on. Beach towels could be fun too. Sprawled on the beach on your favourite Sun. I have a soft spot for one publisher, but I'll keep the name to myself. The others, well, I'm waiting for their plastic figurines to make up my mind fully.

baba-prague	24 Apr 2003
Diana, This is outrageous! I now want the whole Cups family for my breakfast coffee (except wouldn't the Five sometimes fall over?) I also BADLY want the plastic figures. Couldn't they come free in cornflakes - or would muesli be a little more tasteful? Imagine getting The Devil in your muesli though. It wouldn't be a good way to start the day, would it? ;-) Karen

Diana	24 Apr 2003
Quote: Originally posted by baba-prague Imagine getting The Devil in your muesli though. It wouldn't be a good way to start the day, would it? ROFLMAO! :D :laugh:

Astraea	24 Apr 2003
Oh, those dreadful huge, flimsy, perforated/tear-apart white boxes from Llewellyn -- they are only marginally better than wells which don't hold full decks. I like the small slip-sleeve box/book combinations -- the World Spirit is packaged in that way, as are the Tarot of Oz and the new editions of the Celtic and Arthurian tarots. The slip-sleeves are very efficient, attractive and easy-to-store -- and the decks have their own box. Llewellyn has introduced and distributed many fine decks, and for that I am thankful; they have popularized and made accessible many forms of study, and I am grateful for that, too. But sometimes it seems to me that their haste to publish results in books that are filled with typos and other indications of sloppy editing, and the printing of their tarot decks is not always of high quality. Their customer support is quite good, however.

Demonesse	24 Apr 2003
I like US Games' and Llewellyn decks for their general (stress on general) readability. I admire LS art and themes but am disappointed with their general nonreadability and nonconfirmity to card meanings, although I have yet to testread such lauded decks as the Fey. Llewellyn's ultra thin oversized deck boxes are awful, they barely protect the deck. I wish publishers packaged the decks more sturdily - slip sleeve boxes are all right. Tarot Beach Towels? Frightening. Prayer to the powers that be -Pleasssseeee don't let Tarot become as overmerchandized as EVERYTHING nowadays.

RiccardoLS	24 Apr 2003
Quote: Originally posted by divinerguy I have yet to see a deck/book set... Have You tryed the Fey? :) [grin] Apart from jokes, I'll promise I'll try to my best to follow on this thread and maybe explain something (or maybe simply apologize. Who knows?). Riccardo

Umbrae	26 Apr 2003
Although this may or may not be on topic… Lo Scarabeo uses great card-stock. This to me is important. Bad card stock sucks. Recently I bought a Visconti-Sforza from US Games Systems. The card stock sucks. It’s limp…it will not hold up to use – so the deck will sit and not get used. US Games Systems also markets a “Marseilles Deck” that has the cards labeled in English…Like…”What’s up with that?” I ramble…I’ll let you get back to action figures and beach towels…perhaps a spread cloth with a pouch to hold your Jamba Juice…

HOLMES	26 Apr 2003
THEY WON'T RELEASE DECKS THAT WE ALL WANT (or mostly want) 1. aquatic tarot 2. steel wizard 3. rainwalker tarot 4. deck of dreamers 5. angels tarot (the one that is cartoony/comic like ) if they were released would make lots of money in my view and so.. it is crazy to me .

Demonesse	26 Apr 2003
Like…”What’s up with that?” ---Umbrae Are you SURE you're not 18, Umbrae? LS' card stock is generally good. The card stock on the LS Tarot Art Nouveau is limp though, very easily bent, it's caused me no end of frustration. And I detest fold-out LWBs - that's just me though. For that matter, so is the card stock on the Mythic and Inner child cards.

Cerulean	26 Apr 2003
I'm wondering if certain editions of tarot decks actually have worst card stock, different colors? Mythic was conceived in the 1980's? The references go back pretty far and the stock/book was much thinner, the art much less sophisticated than many of the decks these days. I don't think the publishers upgraded the stock as time went on. If the LS Art Nouveau/Primevera was a 1995 edition, maybe the smaller versions weren't as thick and tall as the newer 2002 editions? Or it could be the run, I don't know. It's odd, because my Secrets Tarots always seems to be consistently shiny and well-finished, but then I have the 2000 edition with the High Priestess on the box. If the smaller 1995 version was available for both Secrets and Tarot of the Imagination, they'd be my pocket decks. The variation isn't very much in most cases, but I actually prefer my 1995 Lo Scarabeo small version of the Tarots of the Renaissance because the smaller printing gives deeper color than the 2000 version. On the Visconti decks by U.S. Games, I don't think I've seen a thicker card stock used on the bigger decks. Actually, the stock reminds me of waxed calendar coated stock. If you have different editions of the Inner Child Cards, I've heard the old one in the pink box has one side laminated. I don't know about the newer one...a yellow box?

Emily	27 Apr 2003
I have an old version of the 1jj Swiss, around 20/21 years old and its very different from the decks of today. The deck isn't laminated and the card stock is thicker than they use today, so when you shuffle its like shuffling pieces of card. It does shuffle well though and seemed to get even better with use. It has the feel of a deck that was made to last and it has, the cards havent frayed or discoloured. I know that some of the decks I have today won't be around in 20 years time, the card stock won't stand up to it.

full deck	28 Apr 2003
I had bought a new set of Rider-Waite, thinking to add to my general collection and recieved the deck with "US GAMES" printed on each and every card. Even though the point size is small, I notice it everytime I'm really looking at it. As a result, I don't even bother to use the deck. It is just so annoying and a nagging reminder of how lousy lawyers and corporations can get. It reminds me of the person that slapped a copyright on "Happy Birthday", even though they did not write the song. As a result, one must pay just to sing their best wishes to someone, if it is televised or broadcast in any manner. This sort of legalistic finagling is the last thing I want to contemplate since I deal with it enough. As a result, I won't even bother to consider any decks from US Games©

Logiatrix	28 Apr 2003
bad, bad tarot publisher... st. martin's griffin--elemental tarot, beginner's guide w/ caselli deck; those cheesy book-attached-to-cardboard numbers. destiny books--bad experience with new minchiate tarot, where i had to return the set TWICE before i got a deck with evenly cut cards. this publisher seems to be better at books than decks. the llewellyn "big box"--that huge box to hold a book, a deck, and a strangely sized white box, somehow intended for the cards. like, what's up with that? however, one of those white boxes HAS come in handy for holding my elemental tarot... })

Lee	29 Apr 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Mari_Hoshizaki Mythic was conceived in the 1980's? The references go back pretty far and the stock/book was much thinner, the art much less sophisticated than many of the decks these days. I don't think the publishers upgraded the stock as time went on. I agree, I have a Mythic set that's about five years old and the card stock is pretty flimsy. But people have posted on Aeclectic saying that the new sets, in the yellow box, are a better card quality. I have to disagree about the art being less sophisticated. It's true that the overall style is a little childish, with sketchy faces and hands, but the backgrounds are extremely finely done, with lots of texture and atmosphere. I think the art is deceptively childish, and is actually quite sophisticated. -- Lee :)

Cerulean	29 Apr 2003
I guess my opinion stands correction. To me, the a characteristic of the Mythic is naive graphic style in the friendly and curved figures and faces of the characters compared to the finer drawings/illustrations of Olympus tarot. I agree that the backgrounds seem to be quite finished in the Mythic and some of the pen and color detail for settings can be quite strong. Take care, Mari H>

The Reaction/thoughts about publishers? thread was originally posted on 23 Apr 2003 in the Talking Tarot board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Talking Tarot, or read more archived threads.