Nina*
Mine says exactly the samemythos said:
But I have to admit that I have some problems with these drawings; they just don't seem so appealing like my Jodo-Camoin, even though I know that TdM-'experts' prefer the older versions.
xxx
N.
Piatnik TdM [Tarot de Marseille]
But I have to admit that I have some problems with these drawings; they just don't seem so appealing like my Jodo-Camoin, even though I know that TdM-'experts' prefer the older versions.
xxx
N.
Sophie
To me as well! That's also how I integrate them into my readingsmythos said:
In some decks they look like they are sticking their tongues out at each other.
Moonbow
robert, have you seen the Cavalier De Denier's spur?!
It seems that the Cavalier De Coupe also has them but not the Cavaliers on the other suits.
Spurs: History & Usage:
"...The revolving rowel used in modern western spurs probably originated in France. A roweled spur was shown upon the Seal of Henry III of England who lived from 1207 to 1272. This type became widely popular about the fourteenth century.
During the age of chivalry, spurs became an emblem of rank. Gold or gilded spurs were only worn by knights or royalty. Esquires' were silver and those of a page were tinned. One could tell the rank of the wearer by the spurs, even if the armor or clothing gave no clue..."
"... When a valet became an esquire or an esquire was knighted, he was fitted with new spurs during a special ceremony. Thus came the expression 'earned his spurs.'..."
As I look through this deck I notice many little touches that I haven't noticed in other decks before. There is some nice patterning on the clothing of the Reine and Roy De Denier and also some of the other court cards. Thinking back to the 'Contrasting of Dodal and Conver - Reyne of Batons' thread, she is definately holding a glove in the Piatnik too.
A very interesting deck.
It seems that the Cavalier De Coupe also has them but not the Cavaliers on the other suits.
Spurs: History & Usage:
"...The revolving rowel used in modern western spurs probably originated in France. A roweled spur was shown upon the Seal of Henry III of England who lived from 1207 to 1272. This type became widely popular about the fourteenth century.
During the age of chivalry, spurs became an emblem of rank. Gold or gilded spurs were only worn by knights or royalty. Esquires' were silver and those of a page were tinned. One could tell the rank of the wearer by the spurs, even if the armor or clothing gave no clue..."
"... When a valet became an esquire or an esquire was knighted, he was fitted with new spurs during a special ceremony. Thus came the expression 'earned his spurs.'..."
As I look through this deck I notice many little touches that I haven't noticed in other decks before. There is some nice patterning on the clothing of the Reine and Roy De Denier and also some of the other court cards. Thinking back to the 'Contrasting of Dodal and Conver - Reyne of Batons' thread, she is definately holding a glove in the Piatnik too.
A very interesting deck.
le pendu
Hi Moonbow*
This is a great example of what I mean by comparing ALL of the decks to try to get a sense of what might have been the iconography of the early decks that we have lost.
I remember a time when I was first studying the Noblet, Dodal and Conver decks, and trying to discern which was earliest. Personally, I've come to the conclusion that *all* the decks that have come down to us hold bits and pieces, but none of them are in any way examples of what the earliest cards probably looked like, even if we are talking solely about the TdM.
JMD has of course been saying this for a long time when he discusses the "Ur Tarot", I finally have come around and opened my eyes to all of the decks and look for similarities and differences to try to make guesses. In the end of course, it's probably all just mental gymnastics, but I do love the exercise!
If we look at the Visconti decks, the Knights have spurs, as do the Vieville and some other early cards. Where did they get that? Why wouldn't they have spurs... it is so logical. But when we look at "standard" TdM decks.. they aren't there. Why?
What all of this teaches me is that we can't trust the Dodal or the Conver as "The TdM", and put them on some kind of pedestal, we need to look at all of the decks and appreciate what they each have to offer us.
WHY would the Piatnik have the spurs if the Dodal and the Conver don't? Where did they get this idea? Is it because there are traces of early decks hidden in all of these relatives??? I think so.
Of course, I could be utterly wrong, but I find the investigation of the mystery so interesting, I really don't care.
For me, it's a bit like being an agnostic.. once I let go of my preconceived ideas of what the iconography *should* look like, I'm open to pondering all of the little innuendoes of the decks, and am SO THANKFUL for every example we have.
I hate to say this... but I'm having a "crisis of faith" concerning the "Master Cardmakers".
More and more I suspect that many of the decks were rather quick copies of other decks, with little thought as to the "meaning" of the iconography. I'm leaning more and more to thinking that many of the cardmakers were concerned with making a buck than passing on some sort of message in their images. Of course.. whatever their motive.. they may have been passing on traces that we can compare and evaluate.
Why would the Piatnik have spurs on two of the Knights rather than on all four? Where did they get the idea that any of them should have them? Not from the Dodal or Conver! So did they "add" them as an artistic touch? Or perhaps the Dodal and Conver are just additional manifestations with their own idiosyncrasies? The pool of imagery seems much deeper to me now than when I started looking at them a couple of years ago. Again.. letting go of thinking that any of the decks is "right" and just looking at the patterns of all of them has opened me to more possibilities.
So yeah, I like the spurs, and suspect that all four Knights probably had them early on. Does this matter to anyone else? Probably not. It's just a minor detail in the scheme of things. But when I see them show up on a deck like the Piatnik, I get excited.
Someone should probably order me a rubber room.. hee hee.
I'm so glad you're enjoying the deck.
best,
robert
Moonbow* said:
This is a great example of what I mean by comparing ALL of the decks to try to get a sense of what might have been the iconography of the early decks that we have lost.
I remember a time when I was first studying the Noblet, Dodal and Conver decks, and trying to discern which was earliest. Personally, I've come to the conclusion that *all* the decks that have come down to us hold bits and pieces, but none of them are in any way examples of what the earliest cards probably looked like, even if we are talking solely about the TdM.
JMD has of course been saying this for a long time when he discusses the "Ur Tarot", I finally have come around and opened my eyes to all of the decks and look for similarities and differences to try to make guesses. In the end of course, it's probably all just mental gymnastics, but I do love the exercise!
If we look at the Visconti decks, the Knights have spurs, as do the Vieville and some other early cards. Where did they get that? Why wouldn't they have spurs... it is so logical. But when we look at "standard" TdM decks.. they aren't there. Why?
What all of this teaches me is that we can't trust the Dodal or the Conver as "The TdM", and put them on some kind of pedestal, we need to look at all of the decks and appreciate what they each have to offer us.
WHY would the Piatnik have the spurs if the Dodal and the Conver don't? Where did they get this idea? Is it because there are traces of early decks hidden in all of these relatives??? I think so.
Of course, I could be utterly wrong, but I find the investigation of the mystery so interesting, I really don't care.
For me, it's a bit like being an agnostic.. once I let go of my preconceived ideas of what the iconography *should* look like, I'm open to pondering all of the little innuendoes of the decks, and am SO THANKFUL for every example we have.
I hate to say this... but I'm having a "crisis of faith" concerning the "Master Cardmakers".
More and more I suspect that many of the decks were rather quick copies of other decks, with little thought as to the "meaning" of the iconography. I'm leaning more and more to thinking that many of the cardmakers were concerned with making a buck than passing on some sort of message in their images. Of course.. whatever their motive.. they may have been passing on traces that we can compare and evaluate.
Why would the Piatnik have spurs on two of the Knights rather than on all four? Where did they get the idea that any of them should have them? Not from the Dodal or Conver! So did they "add" them as an artistic touch? Or perhaps the Dodal and Conver are just additional manifestations with their own idiosyncrasies? The pool of imagery seems much deeper to me now than when I started looking at them a couple of years ago. Again.. letting go of thinking that any of the decks is "right" and just looking at the patterns of all of them has opened me to more possibilities.
So yeah, I like the spurs, and suspect that all four Knights probably had them early on. Does this matter to anyone else? Probably not. It's just a minor detail in the scheme of things. But when I see them show up on a deck like the Piatnik, I get excited.
Someone should probably order me a rubber room.. hee hee.
I'm so glad you're enjoying the deck.
best,
robert
Moonbow
Thanks for your post robert.
The trouble with this type of exercise (of comparing decks) is that you need so much room.
I had the Heron Conver and Dusserre Dodal decks, as well as the Piatnik, spread out all over my bed today, isn't it just typical that the Vieville was not amongst them, or I would have noticed the spurs in that deck (infact I think I knew this but forgot it!) With most new Marseilles decks I tend to first compare them to the Dodal and Conver... just as you have said.
I was also very struck by the LWB in this deck. Most LWB's are in French so not of much use to me (although I have tried to make a pig's ear of translating bits). In the Piatnik LWB there is a very nice spread which I hadn't heard of before, a nice section on the mystical significance of Tarot and suggestions on using Tarot for meditation and for building intuition. These type of suggestions, although not new to me, are refreshing to see written in a LWB.
The trouble with this type of exercise (of comparing decks) is that you need so much room.
I had the Heron Conver and Dusserre Dodal decks, as well as the Piatnik, spread out all over my bed today, isn't it just typical that the Vieville was not amongst them, or I would have noticed the spurs in that deck (infact I think I knew this but forgot it!) With most new Marseilles decks I tend to first compare them to the Dodal and Conver... just as you have said.
I was also very struck by the LWB in this deck. Most LWB's are in French so not of much use to me (although I have tried to make a pig's ear of translating bits). In the Piatnik LWB there is a very nice spread which I hadn't heard of before, a nice section on the mystical significance of Tarot and suggestions on using Tarot for meditation and for building intuition. These type of suggestions, although not new to me, are refreshing to see written in a LWB.
le pendu
Moonbow* said:
My poor boyfriend comes home and I have twenty or so versions of the the same card spread out on my desk... He looks at me as if to say "is this really necessary?"... YES!!!, for me it is totally necessary!
At one point.. I broke up all of my historical decks by card... I had all of these piles of the King of Whatever or the Queen of Whatever piled on my desk.. what a mess.
As much fun as it is to look at the cards from this angle, it's probably just as important to look at a deck in relation to itself.. with just its cards laid before you. Ah.. the mysteries of Tarot!!!
best,
robert
Cerulean
I wonder if you want to go back as far as the 1450s...
Perhaps the 1650s are a better beginning point, perhaps looking at Isle of Paris at it's 'height'--more from 1650s-1890s to really find the 'modern' era. Glancing at the beautiful Tarot de Paris and Vieville, those cross-cultural influences reflect also the confluences at different times in France...which one finds in different Italian regions--which depended on political alliances, marriages and varies so much over these times.
I'd love to see the notes of your tight and clean design observations online or in text, Le Pendu! What became our delightful 'ancient Marseilles' --perhaps Grimaud's line drawings are the ones that I am used to seeing in my few other language references when it comes to "French Marseilles".
Bolognese, Milanese and other Italian regional patterns are so fluctuating as a popular culture game --even among the beautiful di Gumppenberg/Della Rocca engravings. At some times, there were variations that included French pips and double-headed figures for games, at some times there was Etteilla for the occult...
Sorry if my conversation is vague, we're in a different region...but I saw this and wanted to refresh and revisit the beautiful discussion.
Cerulean
Perhaps the 1650s are a better beginning point, perhaps looking at Isle of Paris at it's 'height'--more from 1650s-1890s to really find the 'modern' era. Glancing at the beautiful Tarot de Paris and Vieville, those cross-cultural influences reflect also the confluences at different times in France...which one finds in different Italian regions--which depended on political alliances, marriages and varies so much over these times.
I'd love to see the notes of your tight and clean design observations online or in text, Le Pendu! What became our delightful 'ancient Marseilles' --perhaps Grimaud's line drawings are the ones that I am used to seeing in my few other language references when it comes to "French Marseilles".
Bolognese, Milanese and other Italian regional patterns are so fluctuating as a popular culture game --even among the beautiful di Gumppenberg/Della Rocca engravings. At some times, there were variations that included French pips and double-headed figures for games, at some times there was Etteilla for the occult...
Sorry if my conversation is vague, we're in a different region...but I saw this and wanted to refresh and revisit the beautiful discussion.
Cerulean
Moonbow
7 of Coins
This is becoming one of my favourite decks, I like that it's simplistic and there aren't many colours. I also like to be able to see the drawing lines underneath the colours, which isn't clear in the Heron Conver for example.
I noticed that the 7 of Coins is different to the Dodal and Conver in that the arrangement is not a group of three coins at the top and a group of four underneath them. Instead they are arranged as 3, 1 and 3. This makes me curious as to why (I quite like my seeing the coins as a triangle and square in other decks), and also whether any other decks have this same arrangement for the 7 of Coins.
This is becoming one of my favourite decks, I like that it's simplistic and there aren't many colours. I also like to be able to see the drawing lines underneath the colours, which isn't clear in the Heron Conver for example.
I noticed that the 7 of Coins is different to the Dodal and Conver in that the arrangement is not a group of three coins at the top and a group of four underneath them. Instead they are arranged as 3, 1 and 3. This makes me curious as to why (I quite like my seeing the coins as a triangle and square in other decks), and also whether any other decks have this same arrangement for the 7 of Coins.
Leleii
The Hanged Man 11X
On my deck the hanged man is numbered 11X not X11, does that mean
anything? Is it a typo?
Leleii
On my deck the hanged man is numbered 11X not X11, does that mean
anything? Is it a typo?
Leleii
la-luna
from what i hear it sounds very alike (identical) to my Tarot Rhenan is it ?
