Experienced Rider Waite Readers

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 23 Nov 2004, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Little Baron	23 Nov 2004
Before, I ask this question, I just want to make it clear that I am not belittling the Rider Waite cards or those that read them ... I was just thinking this evening; whenever I look at posts from New Members and they ask which deck people here think they should learn with, aside from the suggestions that people give regarding decks that 'speak' to the reader, many suggest the Rider Waite - obviously because it has been 'tried and tested', is rich in symbolism and there are a lot of resourses out there to help the new reader along. In that sense, whether good or bad, it could be labelled as a 'beginners' deck. Does this tag irritate or somehow belittle its true value, in your opinion? With this in mind, I was just curious to how many readers on the board (ones that have had a lot of study and experience behind them) have continued to read with it over many years, past the stages of using it as a beginners tool. Of course, for people that have been reading a lot longer than I have (8 years or so), there were not so many choices a good few decades ago. Now that there is, I was just interested in the relationship that 'long time readers' have with this deck. I have the Original RWS and the Universal and do take them out occasionally for comfort; because they are two of my older decks, the weariness of their appearance is like snuggling up with an old blanket. Even though they are not my main reading decks, I am aware that there are still many stories within these decks yet to discover. The pictures somehow hold a childhood vibe for me; like an old picture book I once owned and was read to from as a kid. Just interested ... all comments are welcome. Best wishes Yabs

Flavio	23 Nov 2004
Yaboot wrote: In that sense, whether good or bad, it could be labelled as a 'beginners' deck. Does this tag irritate or somehow belittle its true value, in your opinion? Hi Yabs! glad to read you. I think the deck is not a problem, but maybe the label is, your question made me think that RWS instead of beign considered a "beginner's deck" could be labeled as "a deck you can use, no matter what level of Tarot expertise you have". As for the long time readers I'm eager to see their answers.

MeeWah	23 Nov 2004
RWS was my first deck, mainly because it was the only one available at Brentano's in Greenwich Village. An impulse purchase of many, many years ago, I was attracted to the image of The Magician on the box, not because I knew anything then about Tarot. In fact, I forgot about the deck & continued to rely on regular playing cards & Zolar's Astrological Tarot deck. The latter bears the symbols of regular playing cards & RWS images on one side of the deck; astrological/numerical references on the other side. I ignored Tarot until my main reading deck of playing cards mysteriously disappeared & was stuck with being unable to read with another deck of playing cards. I dug up the RWS--& to my amazement, it spoke clearly. Since then (& especially since stumbling on Aeclectic Tarot), I have acquired other decks, but RWS remains my old faithful. I have retired it from the readings circuit & reserve it for personal use only because of its age, but acquired a new copy some time ago for readings. As a reading deck, I recommend it highly for the neophyte & the experienced.

TemperanceAngel	23 Nov 2004
Interesting thread Yabs, I can totally relate here (RWS reader of 15 years..) For me, I would like to add to this thread, what kinda comments I have come across when I have been out with my deck... Well let's see the first time I went to the Tarot Cafe in Melbourne a guy said to me (not jmd): "Oh, you read with that deck..." And he laughed, not in a jovial way. Not the best introduction to the Cafe, lucky I'm strong and persisted in going... Oh here's another fave: "Everyone usually starts with that deck..." Implying what??? I am still a beginner... The list goes on...I won't continue, it bores me...seriously: really bores me. I think when I came to AT it was one of the reasons I couldn't get myself involved in the: this deck is better discussion.... I'll probably come back and add to this thread, but to start with a little bit of venting never goes astray :D Edited to add: It's not people on AT who bore me, I hope no-one read it that way :eek: It's the attitude of those comments over many years that do...

noby	23 Nov 2004
I'm just a beginner myself, so I can't speak to whether or not the RWS is a deck I will use far down the road, though I strongly suspect I will. I think the main reason it is a good beginner's deck doesn't have to do with the cards themselves, but with the fact that most tarot literature revolves around this deck. There's so many perspectives and information on this deck that I believe it is easier to "digest" as an internal reference. If one were to be able to switch the amount of literature for RWS with the amount of literature for Thoth, for example, I'm pretty certain the Thoth would become the more popular beginner deck. I also believe that it is simple, straightforward, and universal in many aspects, but also includes many symbols which call to mind many references and which provide a deeper and more complex angle on the card. The deck keeps on giving, but is also accessible. So it's a great beginner deck but also a great deck in general, in my opinion. It seems to me that some people look down at the RWS and prefer decks like the Thoth and Marseilles not because of the decks themselves, but out of a feeling of elitism that comes with those decks. Now, I'm not saying this is true for everyone, as there's plenty of people here who show how much of a deep appreciation for and connection with these decks they have. But I think that the way people talk about the Thoth and Marseilles often reflects a sense of having access to deeper and more hidden knowledge or expertise. I find it all incredibly silly and am sometimes taken aback by how seriously some people seem to take themselves and their tarot preferences here. As remarkable a tool and set of images as it may be, the bottom line is that the tarot is just a deck of cards. I find many ideas in "occult" areas to be deeply fascinating and illuminating. But at the same time, I've never had a taste for the pagentry around the occult, the sense of elitism, which I find to be childish and silly. But I know some people eat up that stuff with a spoon, and as such, it's probably good for those people to be able to do or have things which make them feel they have reached a "higher level"...

Imagemaker	23 Nov 2004
Quote: am sometimes taken aback by how seriously some people seem to take themselves and their tarot preferences here. As remarkable a tool and set of images as it may be, the bottom line is that the tarot is just a deck of cards. I find many ideas in "occult" areas to be deeply fascinating and illuminating. But at the same time, I've never had a taste for the pagentry around the occult, the sense of elitism I so agree. And the variety and experimentation that appears in RWS decks will always be more interesting to me than the locked-in historical symbolism.

Shade	23 Nov 2004
When readig in public I have always used a RWS clone deck because, while I think the style of deck is perfect for reading with strangers there is a high probability that they or a friend of theirs has the deck and it would lose a bit of its mystery for them. They also might question my expertise if I'm using the same deck their friend bought at the mall. I do think I need to return to the RWS to fortify the foundations of my reading. I've spent a few years broadening my horizons with other decks and I think it's time to go back and go deeper.

shelikes2read	23 Nov 2004
My first deck is a RWS that I got when I was 14 years old, back in (yikes can it be this long?) 1978. Had I not started researching tarot-related things last summer, and discovered AT and the MSN group "Tarot for Life", chances are it would still be the only deck I have. I haven't encountered anyone who looks down their nose at my well-used RWS deck. Then again, other than the friends who learned to read cards at the same time I did, I haven't really interacted face-to-face with anyone else who reads cards. So it's not like anyone in my offline life would have anything negative to say about which deck I've used for all these years. If I hadn't seen mentions of the Gilded Tarot in the BNU Tarot course, the Tarot for Life group, and AT, I wouldn't have known it was out there. But I did, and when I looked at the images I had one of those "WOW!!!!" moments. So now there's a Gilded deck sharing the workload with my RWS deck. And I'm fine with that. But if anyone I meet ever has something negative to say about my old friend the RWS deck, well... that's THEIR problem, not mine. If they haven't learned to respect the fact that whatever tool works for a person is good for that person, regardless of whether or not THEY personally prefer to use that tool, then they still have some work to do in the learning department. For myself, I can't imagine why anyone would criticize ANY choice that truly speaks to someone else. If someone came up to me and said "I have 78 different business cards that I've assigned Tarot definitions to, and I'm using those to read", what right would I have to put them down? If it works for them, great. It's all about the INSIGHT we get from the readings, not which deck we're using to pursue the insight. JMO, your mileage may vary, and all that good stuff. :)

Alta	23 Nov 2004
I started out with Rider Waite in 1971, and there were literaly no other choices available where I was (Vancouver). I bought the deck and a book by Eden Grey and taught myself. I had not used the RWS that much in recent years. Then the Ottawa Tarot Club started to meet and something interesting happened. Every meeting we do readings, one way or another. And the RWS is like a lingua franca between us. It is the one deck that all four of us can easily relate to when reading.

dadsnook2000	23 Nov 2004
I acquired my Waite-Smith in the early 70's. In the past few years I have acquired other decks. When reading for others I keep a small number at hand to use depending upon the person and situation. Waite-Smith: I use this deck for those who seem unsure of why they are seeking a tarot reading or for those who have just started studying the tarot. For the former, this deck might be familiar and the symbology is not threatening or strange -- I don't need them to be distracted from the reading. For the latter, this deck should be familiar and allow them to follow along and even ask better questions. Robin Wood: I use this deck for those who seem truly excited about having a tarot reading. The graphics are stunning, a little exotic and interesting, yet the symbology is not remote from the Waite-Smith tarots. Tarot of Prague: I use this deck when reading for older people or those who seem more sophisticated. They relate to the European feel and the subtle art work. Fey Tarot: For spiritual questions, younger women and those who seem to live in their own world this is the deck to use. It places them and their questions/issues into a new framework and opens them up for dialog and interchange. Witches Tarot: When questions are kept hidden and aggitation-levels seem high, when someones is cagey about something -- then I change the ground rules. I explain that this deck is different, its symbology is different from that of standard decks (it associates fire with swords, air with wands) and it seems to allow me added insights into mysteries. So that is my toolbox and approach to various readings. Dave.

rota	23 Nov 2004
Marion wrote: I started out with Rider Waite in 1971, and there were literaly no other choices available where I was. I bought the deck and a book by Eden Grey ..... And the RWS is like a lingua franca between us. ++++++ This sounds so familiar I could have written it myself, right down to the date. For me, up until the early 80's when I saw my first Thoth deck, RWS *was* tarot, because there was no was no other information to be had. It may simply have been the timing of our exposure to tarot, for those of us who prefer RWS and its variants, because of our ages, impressionable natures, and the availability of options. ('Lingua franca'! I love that phrase. We use Latin words, in English, to say that everyone understands French...)

ribbitcat	24 Nov 2004
Yaboot wrote: In that sense, whether good or bad, it could be labelled as a 'beginners' deck. Does this tag irritate or somehow belittle its true value, in your opinion? I have the Original RWS and the Universal and do take them out occasionally for comfort; because they are two of my older decks, the weariness of their appearance is like snuggling up with an old blanket. Yabs I that it's often under-valued because it has become the "standard" deck in many ways , and therefore has none of the cachet of other more unusual or occult-seeming decks . Attitudes to it may display tarot snobbery ;-) I've been working with it for about 15 years , and rather than an old blanket , I describe it as like a comfy pair of old slippers ..... :-) ribbit

WalesWoman	24 Nov 2004
Before I got my own deck and started learning how to read, a freind of mine did a reading for me...he had several decks but picked out the RWS, saying "there are a lot of great tarot decks, but this is THE Tarot deck of all time, the best one out there." Not to add to the "my deck is better than yours" snobbery, but I think RWS is the most universal deck around. More people recognise it, it's easy to learn and I think it's a really good base to start from. It's sort of the backbone, so when you do get other decks, you have a good foundation to work from, tho' sometimes you almost have to unlearn a few things ...or rather add to your knowledge base. Maybe Radiant is a clone, but it's still RWS in my book, and I'm really glad I have it.

cheekyminx	24 Nov 2004
Took me about 8 years and then I purchased a Rider Waite deck :) Now its the only deck I use to read with. So I guess I did it backwards? lol

Phaedra	25 Nov 2004
I've been reading with the RWS for almost thirty years. It's hardly a beginners' deck, though I recommend it to beginners for all the reasons given in Yaboot's original post. Some years back, I also fell in love with the Robin Wood, which is, of course an RWS clone. These days, I reserve the Robin Wood for personal and coven readings, and use my well-worn RWS for public readings -- although I just acquired the Halloween Tarot, and find it makes a great public deck. Yes, you need a deck that "speaks" to you, but often what you need is to acquire the language of the deck. RWS is rich in western occult symbolism; if you don't speak that language, the deck will likely not speak to you. If you do speak that language, it transcends any quibbles over Smith's turn-of-the-last-century artwork. My biggest bitch with RWS clones is that usually they pretty up the artwork at the expense of eliminating iconography of which the new artist is ignorant.

magpie9	25 Nov 2004
Marion wrote: the RWS is like a lingua franca between us. It is the one deck that all four of us can easily relate to when reading. I started reading with the RWS in San Francisco, 1961. It was the only deck available at that place and time. I think I was lucky, in that. The Illustrated Minor was sheer genius, and still is. It opens the Tarot to those who do not care to trifle with numerology or various arcane and occult systems. It's the key to Universal Tarot Literacy. It's the Mother of Intuition! It is the standard, against which other decks are measured, and it is the "lingua franca" amoung readers. It's earned this position, by being so accessable, yet full of symbolism. the Thoth and Marseille ((HOWEVER you spell it) are well and good, but I don't feel they can compete as reading decks with the RWS, and it's "clones." Funny thing about that word, "Clones". all hell would break loose if we reffered to the various Marsaille (whatever...)decks as clones. And thoth-like decks called clones? Heresy!! I still read with it, though not as often as I used to, since I enjoy its wide variety of "clones."

Cerulean	25 Nov 2004
Yaboot says: I have the Original RWS and the Universal and do take them out occasionally for comfort... Cerulean replies: That's a lovely thought and maybe this is all you need from them. Someday, perhaps, one of the blue-boxed English decks might come your way--I've heard the blue box ones that 78 Fool talked about are similar to my 1971 U.S. Games version where the claim of "Accurate Color Tones" and a kind of matte finish makes them appear and feel different. When I saw MK Greer teach with the Giant version and had some PCS prints, I sensed something different about the art and colors that made me curious. I really only needed an older version of the deck and a good text printing of the Pictorial Key to the Tarot to begin realizing such a warm joy, myself. I have heard others believe that if many are so familiar with the images that it robs their own sweet feeling of mystery. In doing a few readings, for others, some who really like the RWS, it brought home to me something different. For them, knowing what they like--I can read the familiar words in a different way, see the familiar pictures form a film. When I read for them, the filters of the moment really whispered something haunting, fluting and at the edge of knowing and unknowing. It doesn't happen unless they like the RWS very much... I know someone who doesn't believe in tarot decks telling much, yet he bought Tarot of the Witches because he joyfully remembers James Bond flicks. He bought the Rider Waite deck in the yellow box because it was the only deck in the bookstore opposite the church that he played hooky from...he also has all the Dr. Seuss books because he thought they were more twisted than Sesame Street. What a lovely pick of stories to read today! Thank you for your question. Regards, Cerulean

Little Baron	25 Nov 2004
Cerulean, I my RWS came in a purply blue box and what I see as blue in a lot of decks, is a faint minty green in mine. I got the idea that many do not like this colouring but I actually prefer it; gives it a weird and dreamt feel. Is that the English deck you speak of or is it another one? Yabs

Cerulean	25 Nov 2004
http://www.sacred-texts.com/tarot/tcc/index.htm I believe your version has a feel truer to the 1909 version...my reprint is closer to what was seen on the right (close to 1971 before they switched from Park Avenue, New York address). I've not seen the English blue boxed version, but others have told me it's very very good... What's not pictured is the coloring on at least four cards I like in the first runs of the 1970/71 version--the light gray in the Ace of Pentacles is very lovely and smooth and flat in the sky. It is noticeably lighter than the gray in the clouds of the Seven of Cups. I think I like best the subtle plays in the Eight of Cups. The Eight of Cups has this subtle play of grays and blues, so a serge/light blue-gray of the sky drops into one hue brighter run of blue when I look at the water. I see the gray-blue of the serge sky, brighter blue of the water, and the soft dove gray color that is the the same as the cloud in the Seven of Cups in about a quarter of inch of shadowy land beneath the olive gray-green grass of the standing figure. The grass color between the stacked cups is a mustard tinge one hue brighter than the olive grass and one shade darker than the yellow cups. Switching back to the major arcana, I see the serge-blue in the background of the Hermit is the same blue-gray as the Seven of Cups and the gray of the Hermit's cloak is the same gray as the clouds in the Seven of Cups. The Hermit stands amidst an almost level range of snow-capped peaks, unlike the upward reach and the drop-down angle of the snow-capped peaks of the Fool. I don't know if that answers your color questions and I hope they seem the same! I was told by an American who bought the purple-blue boxed English sets that she saw the coloring as different and yet a better bargin and match compared to other vintages of colored RWS modern variations that she has. For some odd reason, I don't like the later yellow-boxed U.S. Games RWS, although I like the groovy pink-backed University Books coloring...and I'm going to look at the almost blue vivid Tarot Sutra RWS as a reading alternate, since I seem to be attracted to such variations in this hue. I hope I get the same reading joys that this 1971 deck has given me--this deck, I don't want to wear out. Regards, Cerulean

Emily	25 Nov 2004
I learned with the blue box Original Rider Waite, it was my main study deck - I loved the idea of the artwork but the colouring of this deck left me cold so i soon moved on. I didn't realise at the time that there were other versions of this deck which were coloured differently. I do think that the reason why so many beginners start with this deck is because there is so much Rider Waite study material around - many books are illustrated with some version of the Rider Waite - so people buy this deck through association. But I don't believe that it is only a beginners deck - once you start to see the hidden symbolism of the Waite, well it could turn into a lifetime study. I have actually gone full circle - I use the Morgan Greer, my 'one', but I want to connect to the Rider Waite again so I've ordered another version and will study the decks side by side - a prospect that I am really looking forward to.

Maelin	26 Nov 2004
I started with the US games 1970 version, bought in the mid 70's ( yikes!) since it and I believe the swiss IJJ Marseille like deck were the only ones available - and the othe left me cold. Mine had - still has the blue tartan back. I never much liked the colouring, as there seemed to be far too much yellow, and remarkably little variation. Nonetheless, it has only been in the past year, since discovering AT that I branched to other decks - but interestingly, as Marion noted, I find myself translating them back in my head to RWS imagery. So, I see the nine stones come up with the Hallowquest deck, and in my mind I'm going - Hmm, animals in the forest - lets see, that'd the woman in the garden with the hawk on her arm" I gave in about a month ago and bought the Universal Waite, all because of the colour-pencil effect of the cards - and the fact that I finally noticed the rabbit in the Queen of pentacles, just because of the colour. The RWS is in many sences more than a pair of slippers, or a blanket - it is for most of us, our mother tounge. Although we may learn other languages, but what a sigh of relief to pick up a book in english after trying to strugglr through french and german - even with the phrase book for help! Bast wishes

Moongold	26 Nov 2004
When I went to buy my first deck they didn't have a Rider Waite so, unable to wait, I bought Cannon Reed's 'Witches Tarot". At the same time I got 78 DW which is based on the RWS. So I had to get an RWS but became dissatisfied with the artwork and got a Morgan Greer, which I really liked, and then various other RWS clones and decks belonging to other schools of Tarot. After almost 30 months of learning Tarot I am using the RWS much more now and love it. A while ago I became entranced with the story of Pamela Colman Smith and that changed my perspective on the RWS. There is so much more in it for me now. I think you have to learn the RWS at some stage or other because it is in many ways the standard now. Thanks, Yabs :)

Cerulean	27 Nov 2004
Some of you indicated decks earlier than 1971 (if I'm not mistaken)...if it was not the English blue box, do you remember who published your vintage deck? I apologize for my curiousity, but I like the different older versions...do you remember if it was... -a bright University Books in a pinkish box -an earthy Hoi Polloi that came as part of a boxed set - an Albano Waite (a vintage one for very little money is coming to me...soon, I hope...) in a might-be yellowish box - something else? Thanks! Cerulean

Penelope	27 Nov 2004
I've had my cards for some time, from before there was even a mention of Mr. Waite any bigger than the fine print that U.S.Games now uses for a TradeMarked Pamela Colman Smith. Rider & Co has ever shown the Artist a great deal of respect.

Chronata	29 Nov 2004
I think of my RWS deck the same way I think of certain books that I read when I was much younger. When I re-read them at a later time, I felt that there were things in the story that I missed the first time around.... I started with the RWS in 1981, then read with the Hanson Roberts for a few decades before I came back to that "beginner's deck" and found a wealth of information in it that I had not seen. When I hear people speak of it as a beginner's deck...that doesn't bother me at all. After all, it was my first deck, and one whose images seem ingrained in the mass public's perception of what a tarot deck looks like. I think of it more as a "student's deck"...but then again, even after 20 something years of reading....I still consider myself an ongoing student of the tarot.

northsea	05 Dec 2004
I made a concerted effort to avoid the RWS when I first began doing tarot, and used mainly the Morgan Greer because of the reputation of the RWS as the commonplace tarot deck. I didn't get a RWS deck until about 6 years after, and found it to have much richer symbolism than the clones (probably because many of the clones oversimplify the details to excess). There are particular TdMarseille cards, like the Fool, that I much prefer to the RWS version. But, overall, the RWS symbolism resonates with me (almost) the most, plus some of the best tarot books are based on the RWS. Also I like to view faces with expressions when appropriate rather than poker-faces like in the TdMarseille. That said, there are other decks whose symbolism surpass even the RWS, such as the Medieval Scapini. (Also, there is too much yellow-sky in the RWS for my tastes.)

mac22	05 Dec 2004
Yaboot wrote: Before, I ask this question, I just want to make it clear that I am not belittling the Rider Waite cards or those that read them ... I was just thinking this evening; whenever I look at posts from New Members and they ask which deck people here think they should learn with, aside from the suggestions that people give regarding decks that 'speak' to the reader, many suggest the Rider Waite - obviously because it has been 'tried and tested', is rich in symbolism and there are a lot of resourses out there to help the new reader along. In that sense, whether good or bad, it could be labelled as a 'beginners' deck. Does this tag irritate or somehow belittle its true value, in your opinion? With this in mind, I was just curious to how many readers on the board (ones that have had a lot of study and experience behind them) have continued to read with it over many years, past the stages of using it as a beginners tool. Of course, for people that have been reading a lot longer than I have (8 years or so), there were not so many choices a good few decades ago. Now that there is, I was just interested in the relationship that 'long time readers' have with this deck. I have the Original RWS and the Universal and do take them out occasionally for comfort; because they are two of my older decks, the weariness of their appearance is like snuggling up with an old blanket. Even though they are not my main reading decks, I am aware that there are still many stories within these decks yet to discover. The pictures somehow hold a childhood vibe for me; like an old picture book I once owned and was read to from as a kid. Just interested ... all comments are welcome. Best wishes Yabs I started with RWS and still use it today...that's 30+ yrs. Yes I have and use other decks but I still like & use RWS every day.....

The Experienced Rider Waite Readers thread was originally posted on 23 Nov 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.