RW vs. Marseilles

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 22 Jul 2004, and now archived in the Forum Library.

blackroseivy	22 Jul 2004
Ok, so I just got the Vision Tarot. I'm told it's a Marseilles deck. What I want to know is, how does this make it distinct from the may RW-based decks out there? I am not nearly as familiar with the Marseilles, I must admit, & I'm trying out both styles to see how they are different. I knew the RW first (as so many of us do!), but then getting back into it I am *very* into the Medieval originals, & of course your Marseilles is based on them. I have some copies of the Marseilles majors that I can't exactly use - one is dollhouse-sized, the other is one I'm coloring in from copies. So the RW symbolism is more familiar, but I'm not even sure how different it is from M to begin with. (Pant pant!) Anybody have anything to share on the topic? :D

Little Baron	22 Jul 2004
Hi Danhube Have you got a link to these cards as I am not familiar with them. Thanks Yaboot

Lee	22 Jul 2004
A review by our own Cerulean: http://www.tarotpassages.com/vision-mh.htm A different review, this one with some scans: http://www.tarotpassages.com/vision.htm Some scans on Aeclectic: http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/vision/ Some nice sharp scans: http://www.astroamerica.com/t-vision.html -- Lee

Rusty Neon	22 Jul 2004
I haven't looked through all the images of the Vision Tarot. Based on my quick perusal, it would seem that, although the Vision's major arcana are based on the Marseilles deck, the Vision's pip cards (Ace to Ten of each suit) are not really based on the Marseilles deck. This is unfortunate. The Marseilles pip cards have non-scenic imagery: the Marseilles images don't just contain a number of suit implements (coins, batons, swords, or cups) to correspond with the card number but also various decor - which adds variety across the suit and can aid in card interpretation beyond mere suit and number approaches. The Vision's pips merely contain the requisite number of suit implements. (:

blackroseivy	22 Jul 2004
I guess what I'm really wondering is how much the imagery of the RW was influenced by the Marseilles...? I know that there are definite points of similarity, but what makes another deck more RW or more M.? Maybe I just have to look at more decks! :D

Diana	23 Jul 2004
Quote: Originally posted by danubhe Ok, so I just got the Vision Tarot. I'm told it's a Marseilles deck. I looked at the scans of the cards in the links given further up. Whoever told you that it is a Marseilles deck has obviously never seen a Marseilles deck. To call it even a cousin of the Marseilles would be stretching things so far that the elastic would snap. I didn't see one card that even REMINDED me of a Marseilles deck. It is neither a RWS nor a Marseilles. (Just one example, but I could give many many many many many more: Anyone who calls card VI "The Lovers" (Plural) has not followed a Marseilles tradition. In the Marseilles, the word is singular. Always singular.) You may put out of your mind once and for all and definitively that you have bought a Marseilles deck. Possibly it's in a category of its own. If you visit the Historical forum, there are threads there that discuss the Tarot of Marseilles, and you can even see scans of the cards (check especially the threads which discuss the Major Arcana in particular). There is, I recall, a thread there which must be entitled something like "What makes a Marseilles deck a Marseilles deck." I cannot recall the exact title, and I do not have the time to go and hunt it up. But the Historical forum is a perfectly wonderful place to stroll around and to read about the Tarot of Marseilles in particular.

Jewel-ry	23 Jul 2004
I am not an authority on the matter but this is definately not a Marseilles deck. I have seen this deck and I find it quite flat. My advice? Go and buy a real one ....then compare the two. The differences will be obvious. :)

Diana	23 Jul 2004
I had to go back and look again to see why anyone would call this a Marseilles deck. I thought maybe I was missing something. The Fool is jumping off a cliff. Marseilles fools do NOT jump off cliffs. They're not that dumb. Definitely definitely not a Marseilles deck. And the Bateleur has a very very wrong table. Completely wrong. The Bateleur in the Marseilles has a table where ONLY THREE LEGS are showed.

TemperanceAngel	23 Jul 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Diana The Fool is jumping off a cliff. Marseilles fools do NOT jump off cliffs. They're not that dumb. Hmmm, not sure what words describe my reaction to that except, LOL, Diana that really made me chuckle :)

Diana	23 Jul 2004
TemperanceAngel: It's only in the Matrix that one can jump off cliffs safely. Now, it is very possible that the Rider Waite deck is part of the Matrix and that the Marseille deck is Sion..... (would this make jmd a kind of a Morpheus?)

Little Baron	23 Jul 2004
Knowing little about the Marseilles, but having looked through at a lot of the cards recently as research to buying 'one', I looked this one up. At first, I thought that maybe there were quite a few 'Vision' tarots and that I had discovered the wrong one, which is why I asked for the link. It would be interesting to find out why your friend thought that it may be one, even though from what I have researched, I cannot see any simularities here - not to the Rider Waite either (but maybe that is just because I skimmed the page). Whatever comes of the discussion, I hope you enjoy the deck and if you are interested in purchasing a Marseilles, as I am, there are a lot of people on here that will be able to point you in the direction of a good one. Best wishes Yaboot

blackroseivy	23 Jul 2004
I't's Cerulean's review that called it a Marseilles - she seems convinced of it. Me, I tend to take each deck on its own merits. I know that the Fool jumping over a cliff is traditional - in my own deck, he will be shown actually over the cliff & falling. Well, so much for the Marseilles comparison!!!! Oh well, folks! :D

Diana	24 Jul 2004
Quote: Originally posted by danubhe I know that the Fool jumping over a cliff is traditional No, not traditional. That is a modern version of the Fool. Or I suppose one could call it "The tradition of the Waite Colman Smith tarot deck". But no more than that. As to Cerulean calling it a Marseille deck... well, I am most surprised. She is very knowledgeable about Historical decks. Maybe it was just one of her off-days. We all have those.

jmd	24 Jul 2004
To my mind, this is clearly not a Marseille deck, no matter how wonderful many of its images may be, and no matter if it takes some of its ordering and numbering from the Marseille or the Wirth. Two cards from the Atouts/Major Arcana are sufficient to show how different from the Marseilles this deck is, and both have already been mentioned: the first, the Bateleur, and the last, the Fool. The Bateleur ('Magician'), apart from the legs of the table not being Marseille-style, and apart from the implements on the table being reversed (where there is similarity), and apart from the different direction of gaze of the person, his hands and arms are importantly in the reversed order: the similarity to Alef is lost. With the Fool, that important path is not only non-existent, but even if implied, ends - for the Fool steps over a cliff-face non-existent in the Marseille (as already pointed out by Diana). In the Marseilles, the path is firmly under the Fou's ongoing moving feet. The deck has its merits, and being Tarot-based, will of course, as any and every Tarot-based deck will, bear numerous similarities to the Marseilles - as the WCS also does. This does not, however, make it a Marseilles.

Sulis	24 Jul 2004
I've just read Cerulean's review and as far as I can see she doesn't actually say it's a Marseilles deck - she says it uses a Marseilles style ordering system and the pips are in a Marseilles style. Love Sulis xx

blackroseivy	24 Jul 2004
I guess I misunderstood her - but for her that sorta made it a "Marseilles", was what *I* understood. All I can say is, I know so little about the Tarot compared to everyone here! Not like I've been a slacker with my reading, but...! Well, would getting the proper Marseilles be recommended, then?

jmd	25 Jul 2004
Would getting an actual issue of a Marseille deck be recommended? .... let me see, or let me count the ways... 1 2 3 4 . . . § I have tried to weigh up the pros and cons, and have decided to reply in the affirmative: it is recommended ...and I'm not too bias :D

Centaur	25 Jul 2004
Quote: Originally posted by danubhe I guess I misunderstood her - but for her that sorta made it a "Marseilles", was what *I* understood. All I can say is, I know so little about the Tarot compared to everyone here! Not like I've been a slacker with my reading, but...! Well, would getting the proper Marseilles be recommended, then? Yes, I would recommend that you purchase a Marseilles. :D There are many to choose from, and you will hear a variety of opinions of each. In my opinion, the Fournier is the best option. For me, it is the most accessible, and colourful, whereas the other decks strike me as ugly sisters, in the same way that the Universal-Waite I find to be very appealing, whereas the original colouring of the Rider-Waite does not appeal to me very much. However, I should add that I would consider purchasing the Hadar Marseilles. Have fun with whatever deck you choose!!!! :)

blackroseivy	25 Jul 2004
In reference to the earlier answers here, I guess what I meant is that the cliff is a *modern* tradition, RW & so forth. As for the Marseilles, I want the most authentic possible deck as I am an antiquities & history buff. Thanks for the advice!

The RW vs. Marseilles thread was originally posted on 22 Jul 2004 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.