Darytessekhmet
That would be nice if he were receptive. I agree the pebbled back would look much better all the way to the edges.
I'm not an expert in tarot edition identification, and the the colors are different because it's a repro, so I'm not 100% sure. Nevertheless, it looks like Pam A (not the Roses and Lilies, especially since the back is pebbled). There's probably someone on here who would be a better judge.
Just got the regular poker sized version of this deck and I'm disappointed. The card stock feels a bit thin but it is ok. The seller shipped in a large box without padding or taping the deck box closed so it arrived with the deck box open and cards loose everywhere. But what's really disappointing is that after looking at the cards closer I realized the image proportions look a bit funny so I compared it to my PCS commemorative tarot in a tin and see that they didn't adjust the images or add wider borders to accommodate for poker sized cards being wider than standard tarot cards when sized down so basically all the images are stretched too wide. I would recommend passing on this deck
Just got the regular poker sized version of this deck and I'm disappointed. The card stock feels a bit thin but it is ok. The seller shipped in a large box without padding or taping the deck box closed so it arrived with the deck box open and cards loose everywhere. But what's really disappointing is that after looking at the cards closer I realized the image proportions look a bit funny so I compared it to my PCS commemorative tarot in a tin and see that they didn't adjust the images or add wider borders to accommodate for poker sized cards being wider than standard tarot cards when sized down so basically all the images are stretched too wide. I would recommend passing on this deck
Sorry to hear about your package delivery.
Yeah, I just compared my poker version to my Albano-Waite, and you're right about the image proportions being stretched. From looking at Darytessekhmet's images of the standard sized version, those proportions look normal, but correct me if I'm wrong.
If I were to guess, I think the image proportion might be an issue with the giant sized deck, too. :/
I think the seller/company ought to make some changes...
Ugh. I bumped into this thread and bought the cheaper version before seeing these comments. Oh, well. For $17, it's not the end of the world.
I sort of started seeing the stretching in the online scans too, but it might be all in my head.
I agree that it seems to be a Pam A reproduction, at least judging by the pebbled backs. It will be interesting to compare it with the newest AGM version, which is also a Pam A reproduction, if I remember correctly. (Not an expert either.)
ETA After re-reading the comments, I went and double-checked the Etsy store. I did buy the regular size deck, so maybe it won't be distorted.
Thanks for the links to the video reviews. I wish I had seen that before purchasing! Oh well. The stretch was immediately noticeable to me and once you see it you can't unsee it. Here's a picture for anyone on the fence. I think it is noticeable on the Fool because his chin juts out from the stretch and his legs become much wider.