Aeric
Sometimes I see this opinion reflected mainly in the Big Three: RWS, Marseille, and Thoth. Possibly because these decks are so iconic and familiar to the general population that they receive the most attention.
I saw mentioned a couple of times that the Blue Box RWS, predating any Yellow Box versions, reads best. Blue Box is the earliest edition that's most easily obtainable on the market.
I've often thought it has a slight tinge of selfishness, that to have obtained a rare version of a deck grants one better readability than a more widely available and affordable commercial version. What difference do copyright dates on the cards, or different card stock, make in readability? Whether it's Pam A, B, C or D, is it truly important regarding successful interpretations of the same images?
In terms of provenance, you don't always know who previously owned the deck, or how it came into the hands of the seller. So you can't tell if it really passed through many hands that "energized" it, or if it sat forgotten in a dusty crate until someone needing money pulled it out and decided to sell it. What matters is you found it, you paid more, and it's the first version, so it somehow reads better than the cheaper newer version with copyright dates someone else click-ordered off Amazon.
Should the lucky owners who paid thousands for the surviving Pam-A crackle-back decks have the best readings of any RWS user in the world?
To extend beyond RWS to all decks, are we affected by marketing and nostalgia that we take pride in older versions of decks to the disdain of newer printings? How does and should this affect how we read with them?
I saw mentioned a couple of times that the Blue Box RWS, predating any Yellow Box versions, reads best. Blue Box is the earliest edition that's most easily obtainable on the market.
I've often thought it has a slight tinge of selfishness, that to have obtained a rare version of a deck grants one better readability than a more widely available and affordable commercial version. What difference do copyright dates on the cards, or different card stock, make in readability? Whether it's Pam A, B, C or D, is it truly important regarding successful interpretations of the same images?
In terms of provenance, you don't always know who previously owned the deck, or how it came into the hands of the seller. So you can't tell if it really passed through many hands that "energized" it, or if it sat forgotten in a dusty crate until someone needing money pulled it out and decided to sell it. What matters is you found it, you paid more, and it's the first version, so it somehow reads better than the cheaper newer version with copyright dates someone else click-ordered off Amazon.
Should the lucky owners who paid thousands for the surviving Pam-A crackle-back decks have the best readings of any RWS user in the world?
To extend beyond RWS to all decks, are we affected by marketing and nostalgia that we take pride in older versions of decks to the disdain of newer printings? How does and should this affect how we read with them?
