jmd
Given the recent thread about this card, I thought it may be useful to begin comparisons of the pips with it:
<-- Dodal | Conver -->
It should of course be pointed out that there are various opinions as to which direction the central sword should point in order to make the card upright. As mentioned in another thread quite some time back, this is an area that over the years I have personally decided to alter my own views: the upright I tend to see as presented above. In the context of a reading, other factors become, for me at any rate, more important (see, for example, the threads 3 Epées (Swords) - how may it be read? and At last! Upright vs. Reversed for Hadar, Camoin and Grimaud - two threads that also could well do with additional discussions, of course!).
What is perhaps surprising with the standardisation of the Marseille is that the curved swords have no obvious hilts-vs-blades showing. Rather, there is a symmetry in (sword) design that makes for a 'strangeness' that these are indeed swords (whether or not scimitars or sabres).
Apart from the obvious general similarities of overall design, such as the curved swords having the basic same divisions, there are also unexpected striking differences.
In colouration, whereas the Dodal has the cross-'hilt' of the curved swords each the same colour, this edition of the Conver (it is the Heron Conver here shown, by the way) has each curved sword with a red and an orange cross-bar. This specific Conver also has one of the 'corner' flowers white, in striking distinction from the other three (likely an omission of colouration, as other imprints of the Conver from the same woodblock have this flower coloured the same as the other three)
In design, what strikes strongly is the apparent omission of floral patterns around the straight sword of the Dodal - an omission consistent, however, with the relative simplicity of the Payen (from or by whom the Dodal is made or based).
By contrast to these, the Paris and the much later Schaffhouse decks show hilts:
<-- Paris | Schaffhouse -->
This is one aspect of the Marseille that, to my eyes at least, shows a diminishment in iconography... perhaps useful and easier to depict, for it also allows circular patterns to be shown sequentially from card to sequential, but somehow also seems to be a pattern 'loss'.
Having said this, at least one very early deck, the Vieville, clearly matches the overall Conver pattern.
Below follows the sequence of Vieville, Besançon, Grimaud (the Dodal and Conver fitting on either side of the central card):
It should of course be pointed out that there are various opinions as to which direction the central sword should point in order to make the card upright. As mentioned in another thread quite some time back, this is an area that over the years I have personally decided to alter my own views: the upright I tend to see as presented above. In the context of a reading, other factors become, for me at any rate, more important (see, for example, the threads 3 Epées (Swords) - how may it be read? and At last! Upright vs. Reversed for Hadar, Camoin and Grimaud - two threads that also could well do with additional discussions, of course!).
What is perhaps surprising with the standardisation of the Marseille is that the curved swords have no obvious hilts-vs-blades showing. Rather, there is a symmetry in (sword) design that makes for a 'strangeness' that these are indeed swords (whether or not scimitars or sabres).
Apart from the obvious general similarities of overall design, such as the curved swords having the basic same divisions, there are also unexpected striking differences.
In colouration, whereas the Dodal has the cross-'hilt' of the curved swords each the same colour, this edition of the Conver (it is the Heron Conver here shown, by the way) has each curved sword with a red and an orange cross-bar. This specific Conver also has one of the 'corner' flowers white, in striking distinction from the other three (likely an omission of colouration, as other imprints of the Conver from the same woodblock have this flower coloured the same as the other three)
In design, what strikes strongly is the apparent omission of floral patterns around the straight sword of the Dodal - an omission consistent, however, with the relative simplicity of the Payen (from or by whom the Dodal is made or based).
By contrast to these, the Paris and the much later Schaffhouse decks show hilts:
This is one aspect of the Marseille that, to my eyes at least, shows a diminishment in iconography... perhaps useful and easier to depict, for it also allows circular patterns to be shown sequentially from card to sequential, but somehow also seems to be a pattern 'loss'.
Having said this, at least one very early deck, the Vieville, clearly matches the overall Conver pattern.
Below follows the sequence of Vieville, Besançon, Grimaud (the Dodal and Conver fitting on either side of the central card):
