Card Geometry

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 16 Oct 2003, and now archived in the Forum Library.

jmd	16 Oct 2003
Tarot cards have been published in quite a variety of shapes and sizes. In addition to the more common rectangular shapes, there are circular ones, hexagonal ones and square cards. Of the rectangular variety, there are some which are drawn within a rectangle without specifically determined proportion, some of golden proportion, and others drawn within a double square. For myself, and for various considerations, I had for a long time preferred the Golden Proportion for the frame. Only more recently (in the past year) have I considered that the double square has more intrinsic merit, and also relates to other esoteric considerations I had previously only linked to the double cube 'altar' used in some initiatic orders. The other (non-rectangular) shapes I personally just do not think of as highly when it comes to Tarot - though they have their merits, especially with reflective meditation (and the hexagon is wonderful for this). ...With regards to size, I tend to prefer cards along the smaller end of the 'average' spectrum. The Héron Conver reproduction, or the Schaffhouse (US Games 'Classic') size (approx. 11.5 X 5.8 cm) I find quite ideal... So, apart from the obvious importance of the imagery itself, the design of back of the cards, the media used, and the finish, for me, an ideal deck would have its images in a double-square , and the cards would be approximately the size mentioned above.

DeLani	16 Oct 2003
Very interesting. Could you tell us what the "golden proportion" is? I'm guessing it's the proportion that's in the altar room of that big pyramid; exactly twice as long as it is wide, or something like that... I prefer rectangluar cards, for the ease of shuffling and laying out. I also prefer them smaller (the Hanson Roberts was a good size) because I have small little Hobbit hands. I've seen round ones, and I like the concept, but they are just too messy to shuffle and deal. Never seen hexagonal ones. That would be interesting!

skytwig	16 Oct 2003
Never thought about the geometry of cards... thanks for the perspective... I too dislike the confusion of round cards.... the idea is great, primarily because the circle is so valuable... but the practicality of such cards is elusive...... Cards are so hand oriented. They must 'feel' right, fit right, to be truly non-apparent... and by that, i mean non-intrusive to the process of focus. Cumbersome decks certainly distract from the primary purpose of reading..... So for me, with small hands, smaller is certainly better and for me, rectangular is better than square. Interesting....

The Card Geometry thread was originally posted on 16 Oct 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.