Non-scenically illustrated pips

skytwig

Thanks, jmd, excellent reading!!!

I'm saving this one! :)
 

Dexter

I do not own a deck with non-scenic pips. Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated. I am quite intriqued with reading with non-scenic pips. I study numerology and have found that it has helped greatly when reading to apply this especially soul numerolgy which has given me some great insights on karmic debts etc when specific numbers keep coming up in peoples spreads.

Thks
Dexter
 

jmd

AHh! Dexter, glad you asked :D

Being located in Canada, you may want to obtain your compatriot's beautifully rendered Hadar Marseille deck. My review of this deck follows my review of the Camoin Marseille here on Aeclectic, just in case you would like to read my personal opinion...

enjoy...
 

Dexter

Thanks jmd!

I went to both links and I will definitely be getting this deck. The back of the cards just adds to the attraction to these cards.

Thanks again
Dexter
 

Emily

I've been trying to get my head round the Conver (reproduction) and the Fournier. I've found this thread fascinating so I've bumped it up for the enjoyment of others who might have missed it first time round. :)
 

tarobones

Crystal or Marseilles

The Crystal Tarot is quite beautiful, and any Marseilles deck also serves for "non-scenic" minors. I'm partial to the Convos Marseilles myself, with the Hadar coming in second. It's a tradition I'm just now getting into, but I see it as relating to the RWS tradition as well. BB, Michael
 

Bernice

The non-senic decks, and (sorry) a bit of a rant.

Bumping this interesting thread.

However I'm dismayed to discover that people are incorporating RWS meanings in non-senic pip decks for the elements, and even linking the pips to RW-meaning trumps!

These non-senic pip decks existed long before RWS etc. and I cannot understand why we, with access to all the historical research findings via the internet, have not grasped the original 'element' meanings and applied them to our 'historical' tarot decks, or at least given them some consideration, some recognition.

For divination purposes, I understand that it doesn't really matter what method is used, so long as the deck 'speaks' to the reader. But it would be so nice to have a few methods/systems completely free of last centurys' 'modern popular take' on these decks.

Bee :)
 

nisaba

Bernice said:
Bumping this interesting thread.
Good choice.

Bernice said:
However I'm dismayed to discover that people are incorporating RWS meanings in non-senic pip decks for the elements, and even linking the pips to RW-meaning trumps!
This is not *all* people, of course!

Bernice said:
These non-senic pip decks existed long before RWS etc. and I cannot understand why we, with access to all the historical research findings via the internet, have not grasped the original 'element' meanings and applied them to our 'historical' tarot decks, or at least given them some consideration, some recognition.
What frustrates me is people who, like a particular personal friend of mine, will browse through my collection at times, find a deck that they love and desire, only to realise that it has unillustrated pips and completely disregard it.

I was turned onto non-scenic pips by falling in love with Scapini's Vetrate, which is of course very modern, and it virtually forced me to learn how to use non-scenic pips. I figured it was all right to use RWS-type meanings of them because it was a very recent deck, and the decorations one the cards often lend themselves to those meanings anyway.

Then I hit my Visconti stride, and I was back in history so far that I could see up through its nostrils*. I immediately knew that RWS pips just weren't going to work - the deck would have glowered at me in complete contempt.

So ...

I went Coins = Earth/material, Cups = Water/emotional, Swords = air/intellectual and Wands = Fire/activity. I'm nobody's numerologist, but I came up with an equally simplistic way of looking at each number, and I "cross" the two when I'm reading.

For example, to me twos are less about partnerships as such and more about dualities (and resolving duality can be done by forging partnerships), so - say - the Two Coins may indicate robbing Peter to pay Paul, or doing a double-think whereby buying a copy of the next buzz-Tarot gets prioritised over keeping money back for that electricity bill you know is lurking in your near future. The Two Cups may indicate having mixed or polarised feelings about someone - being drawn to them and repulsed by them, like someone whose sexual infatuation with someone may keep them in a relationship where they are looked on with contempt or worse. So, blending basics for the number with basics for the element gives me starting-points like these, where I can, as with illustrated pips, start talking and just let the rest flow.

Today, I'll read this way with all older historical decks. Anything post-Golden-Dawn including the many fine decks out of the GD itself, though, seem to get RWS meanings attached to them by me. At least I'm consistent in my inconsistency.


* A reference to a favoured Australian colloquialism that so-and-so had their head stuck so far up their own -er- rear end that they could see out their own nostrila, as a way of explaining megalomania
 

Bernice

Nisaba: I went Coins = Earth/material, Cups = Water/emotional, Swords = air/intellectual and Wands = Fire/activity.
This is one of the things I was ranting about because they arn't the original meanings of the Elements, these are the popular/modern 'elements' of the last century. And due to 'new age esoteric tarot' exposure, it's become like second nature for many of us to equate the element names (Fire, Water etc) with their physical counterparts, and is even spoken of as 'traditional' - note that I don't exclude myself here.

Truly, my tarot meanings have developed from various sources, a veritable mish-mash that works fine for divination purposes, but much of which is quite divorced from the roots of early historical cards, their usage & values.

Welding the trump cards to the pip & court deck was a grand idea, but the evolution of this 78 card deck has almost obliberated it's origins. And that's sad.

So ......... this is why I haunt these valuable history threads, sifting the gold-dust to recover richness from the past.

Bee :)
 

nisaba

Dexter said:
I do not own a deck with non-scenic pips. Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated.
Well, that depends. Are you interested in an ancient deck (plain or lavish), or a modern, contemporary-styled deck?