Pamela Colman Smith Commemorative Set--100 Years!

Teheuti said:

From what I've seen, the Pam A is two different printings involving
- different card stock
- different backs
Then there is what Jensen calls a Pam D which is a different edition of the Pam A (a poor photo repro of a Pam A), if that is what you are referring to.

Click to expand...

Actually there are many differencies in the actual cards.
Basically all cards of the "Rose&Lilies" are larger on the sides... like the "marbles" has been cut an average 1 mm (on many cards it's unnoticeable, but when there are objects near the frames it can be seen clearly).
The Pam D is still another edition, and is the result of a different hand/copyst.

RiccardoLS said:

Actually there are many differencies in the actual cards.
Basically all cards of the "Rose&Lilies" are larger on the sides... like the "marbles" has been cut an average 1 mm (on many cards it's unnoticeable, but when there are objects near the frames it can be seen clearly).
The Pam D is still another edition, and is the result of a different hand/copyst.

Click to expand...

I see what you mean about the Rose&Lilies showing more of the image on the sides.

I just saw that Frank Jensen's book compares the Sun card from PKT and the Occult Review article on p. 121. I'd forgotten that the Occult Review article has the wrong number on the Sun (XVIII), although it clearly shows the "oops line."

Why do you think the word "LOVE" appears under the signature on the A&D and not on the B&C? (It also appears in the Occult Review reproduction.)

Mary

All of the background and hypotheses about the early decks is really interesting. It does get a bit confusing, though!

Can anyone tell from the images of the commemorative deck that have been posted which version of the early decks it seems to match closest?

fferyllt said:

Can anyone tell from the images of the commemorative deck that have been posted which version of the early decks it seems to match closest?

Click to expand...

As I stated earlier in this thread
http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=1822469&postcount=169
it comes from a Roses&Lilies Pamela A deck. However, it appears to have been deliberately made to look older (dirtier) than it need have been.

It contains that little bit of extra image on the sides of the Sun that Riccardo confirms is a Roses & Lilies pattern.

After Stuart Kaplan obtained the deck, which I mentioned in the post referred to above, he commissioned several articles from different people for a forthcoming "Smith-Waite Tarot" that would use that deck as its basis. I was one of the people who wrote an article. I can see that he decided not to go with the anthology idea.

Teheuti said:

As I stated earlier in this thread
http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=1822469&postcount=169
it comes from a Roses&Lilies Pamela A deck. However, it appears to have been deliberately made to look older (dirtier) than it need have been.

It contains that little bit of extra image on the sides of the Sun that Riccardo confirms is a Roses & Lilies pattern.

After Stuart Kaplan obtained the deck, which I mentioned in the post referred to above, he commissioned several articles from different people for a forthcoming "Smith-Waite Tarot" that would use that deck as its basis. I was one of the people who wrote an article. I can see that he decided not to go with the anthology idea.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Mary! Now I understand. I think I'd gotten a bit confused by all the various discussion.

lol, it does get hard to follow particularly if you're new to this knowledge like I am! It is fascinating though. I think watching this thread and then the Morgan Greer one I started I have officially crossed over to the dark side...

starlightexp said:

So here is what I don't understand, The Hermit I have has a very flat smooth gray background to it:

In fact it's so smooth and perfect of a gray I found it quite striking when I first saw it. Now it might just be the scanner but the pics on Janet's site the Hermit's background has dot like pattern to it, and it's a very different gray.

Click to expand...

I think I do know where that difference comes in. I am pretty sure Stuart Kaplan has made this commemorative set from the Pam-A with the Roses&Lilies back. And that one is different from the crackled back Pam-A. I have both and there is a difference between the two.
I just compared my crackled Pam-A hermit with the Roses&Lilies one and it shows exactly the difference you are talking about. The Crackled Hermit has a smooth gray background, the Roses&Lilies Hermit has indeed got a dot pattern in it, it is not smooth and the gray is different.


In general, I find that the colours on the Pam-A Roses&Lilies are deeper and sometimes maybe a bit more grainy indeed. I am not sure if this is because the Roses&Lilies version has been printed with less, or with more ink then the crackled back. But it gives a very distinct difference in the colours.

Another example is on the Lovers card. The mountain on the Roses&Lilies Lovers is more homogeneous and doesn't have that grid structure, even though there is still a light spot. The Crackled back Lovers mountain is more grid-like.

starlightexp said:

Not having the new version here I can't really say, but I'm not wondering if what they did to age the new deck is playing with some of the colors a little, because one can look at the boots on the Pam A scan and see that there is a whole extra color added to one boot and not the other but maybe the ageing that they did kinda 'corrects' that.

Click to expand...

Here is another example of the difference between the Roses&Lilies Pam-A and the crackled back Pam-A. The 7 of pentacles from my Roses&Lilies also shows the boots to be the same colour, not different like in the crackled back version. The 7 of pent from the Roses&Lilies also looks cleaner, there is more a bleeding of colours next to the line art on the crackled back 7 of pent. Maybe they were less carefull with the ink while doing this version? Just some thoughts.


Btw, if anyone is interested, I would love to share the scans of my Roses&Lilies and crackled versions of these cards. Also on the forum, but my membership prevents me from posting images. So if anyone would like to see them and have them posted, pm me, and I will pm the images so they can post them for me.

Solandia said:

Hi sea monkey, that's not the case here. I have the cards in front of me and I can definitely see the dots in the printing, they're quite obvious. The scanned images are pretty accurate representations of how they look.

Click to expand...

Ok, I didn't read through the whole thread before finally answering. So here is answer number 3 to the thread. The dots that are visible in the printing makes sense, since this is a reproduction of the Roses&Lilies Pam-A. The original is also showing the same dots... although they are not really dots, but more blots I guess. Because they did use linear printing for the Pam-A's. But it comes out looking at dots, especially with surfaces of one colour (like on the Hermit).

fferyllt said:

That's interesting. I had thought the rose and lily was the first edition. Thanks for straightening up my confusion.

Click to expand...

That actually depends on which theory you believe in most. According to Frank Jensen's theory, the Roses&Lilies was the first edition and first printing. According to Pietro Alligo's theory, the Pam-B was the first printing, followed by the Roses&Lilies Pam-A and finally the crackled back Pam-A as third edition.

I still believe more in the theory that the Roses&Lilies was the first and the Pam B/C were made later by an inferior copyist.

And sorry to not combine all my posts into one. And to address some things that were already addressed later in the thread. I was writing my replies as I was catching up on the thread. But I hope I have still added some info on the wonderful info Mary already provided on the Roses&Lilies deck.