I don't know how this happened...

Richard

.....It took me more than a year and more than 20 decks to get original RWS. Why? 'Cause I thought it's a kind of an obvious choice. Everyone has RWS (ok, not everyone, but most of the people). Most of the people are learning with this deck. When random people think about Tarot, they picture these cards. I must admit, I hate this aspect of the deck......

Somehow I like the fact that the RWS is so ubiquitous. Guess I'm not very sophisticated.

.....Now that I think of it, that "fun factor" is probably why I always feel energized rather than drained from the act of reading. (And now I'm really looking forward to getting that Albano-Waite deck I have on the way :))

My first deck was the Albano-Waite. I got it around 1969-70 at the old Shambala store on Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley. Really interesting deck. I still like it as well as I do the more recent Smith-Waite edition of the RWS.

In the mid 1970s, I started using the Aquarian because I liked the art. However, it never really clicked as a Tarot deck. Too shallow or something. It was too much of a simplification of the RWS. I finally gave up on it and returned to the real thing.
 

Barleywine

Somehow I like the fact that the RWS is so ubiquitous. Guess I'm not very sophisticated.



My first deck was the Albano-Waite. I got it around 1969-70 at the old Shambala store on Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley. Really interesting deck. I still like it as well as I do the more recent Smith-Waite edition of the RWS.

In the mid 1970s, I started using the Aquarian because I liked the art. However, it never really clicked as a Tarot deck. Too shallow or something. It was too much of a simplification of the RWS. I finally gave up on it and returned to the real thing.

Aha! You just jogged my memory on the name of the esoteric bookshop in Berkeley I went to back around 1980. I assume it's long-gone now. I think I still have a paper bookmark from it somewhere. I agree about the Aquarian; it has a nice "autumn" kind of feel to it but I have difficulty reading with it. No resonance there at all.
 

kalliope

I first got the RWS as a gift from my parents in the late 80s or early 90s, because that's what stores stocked and it was the deck most people recognized. But like many others, I really didn't care for the colors in the deck -- that yellow really grated on me! My teenaged self didn't like the illustration style so much, either. So I spent years trying other decks and clones to find one that clicked. Never bothered with the Radiant (didn't like the faces) or the Universal (was too soft and watercolored). The Original seemed promising, but it was a disappointing beigey-greenish tone. Many years later I settled on having a pocket RWS around just for study and reference.

It really wasn't until the big PCS Commemorative box set came out that I found a RWS deck I could love. The color tones are muted and rich, the cardstock is great, and I enjoy Pamela's art a lot more now. I look forward to a pocket sized edition in a tin.

I WISH I'd been lucky enough to stumble upon the Albano Waite back in the early days! I have a mini of it that I really like. Is there a "best cardstock" edition to look for in the full size?
 

Richard

.....I WISH I'd been lucky enough to stumble upon the Albano Waite back in the early days! I have a mini of it that I really like. Is there a "best cardstock" edition to look for in the full size?
I have a German edition, printed in Belgium (around 1987), that has much nicer cardstock than the "plastic" one printed in Italy that I got a few years ago, which was too shiny, smelly, and sticky. It still has a slightly "toxic" odor. I have heard that generally the Albanos from the latter 1980s are worth looking for.
 

Barleywine

I have a German edition, printed in Belgium (around 1987), that has much nicer cardstock than the "plastic" one printed in Italy that I got a few years ago, which was too shiny, smelly, and sticky. It still has a slightly "toxic" odor. I have heard that generally the Albanos from the latter 1980s are worth looking for.

I'm getting it to pair with my shiny, slippery Radiant RWS, which also had a toxic chemical stink to it when I first opened it. Should be a match made in DuPont heaven :)
 

kalliope

I have a German edition, printed in Belgium (around 1987), that has much nicer cardstock than the "plastic" one printed in Italy that I got a few years ago, which was too shiny, smelly, and sticky. It still has a slightly "toxic" odor. I have heard that generally the Albanos from the latter 1980s are worth looking for.

Thank you, now I'll know what to look for. I had one a while back that must have been from Italy -- it was definitely shiny, sticky, and a bit plasticy.
 

Aminegy

I use RWS as a standard learning tool.

I think every deck can be used effectively in reading if we get well skillful at symbolism and trust our own intuition/imagination.
But I do suspect (secretly) some artists may miss some original symbols or not represent them fully. So I use RWS as a standard learning version.