Which Original The Original RWS ?

Le Fanu said:

Really? So why all the tea-staining to murkify the colours? I always found that touch a little odd.

Click to expand...

I don't think US Games have artificially aged or 'tea stained' the images on the PCS Commemorative deck. The colouring may be down to two reasons.

1. Truelight says her genuine Roses and LIlies deck appears a little lighter than the US Games repro. This may be down to the print process and the new printers being used by US Games. I've noticed my 'printed in China' Original RWS is also considerably darker than any of my belgian or italian editions. The colour balancing/brightness and contrast setting process is a very subjective one, dependant on the tastes of the individual photoshop technician. The colour profile of the screen they are working on plus the profile of the scanner used will also affect the finished result. For example, my own scanner is always slightly biased towards red tones so I usually have to conpensate for this in photoshop be upping the cyan in the light tones of the scanned image before printing it out. You never achieve a 100% accurate repro and every person's efforts in this area will look different from sombody else's

2. The brown discolouration on the card images may have much to do with the card stock of Stuart Kaplan's original deck degrading over time. The cardstock used for the Roses and Lilies edition seems to have been quite cheap (The 1910 edition, the Pam A was said to be being printed on 'superior card stock'). Cheap card stock will almost certainly not have been acid free and it is the acid content in paper products that reacts with air and causes the paper or card to go brown with the passing of time. You often see this with old paperbacks.

It may be that Truelight's copy of the Roses and Lilies deck is better preserved than Stuart Kaplan's. If you look at the US Games repro, some cards are worse than others. The Hanged Man seems to be the darkest of all. It's probably been the card stored at the top of the deck for the longest period of time, gaining more light and air exposure. It may also have been the most handled card.

If these cards had been artifiacially 'sepia'd' They would have been a lot more even. All the images would have been batch processed in photoshop with pre-determined and uniform settings.

I think the commemorative deck is probably an accurate repro of the 'original' but we can only conjecture how the colours would have looked when the cards were pristine and new.

Hope this helps.

Chris. xx

These are really interesting comments, and I will ponder the general consensus that the Commemorative is closest to the Original One, including its untouched aging fadings and blotches. As Chris said, I doubt any artificial discolorations have been added for feigned appearance of aging. It has aged naturally (and beautifully). As to the jade and sand Original, recent China printing, I am still perplexed and uncertain. Was it an intended color scheme variation, or an error in ink tones, or a lack of blue ink, or what? Both of these, to my eyes,-- the Commemorative and the Original,-- are much more artistic and atmospheric and magical than the bland flat paints of recent modernized versions.

The 78th Fool said:

2. The brown discolouration on the card images may have much to do with the card stock of Stuart Kaplan's original deck degrading over time. The cardstock used for the Roses and Lilies edition seems to have been quite cheap (The 1910 edition, the Pam A was said to be being printed on 'superior card stock'). Cheap card stock will almost certainly not have been acid free and it is the acid content in paper products that reacts with air and causes the paper or card to go brown with the passing of time. You often see this with old paperbacks.

Click to expand...

mmm..interesting points. But still, if it is ageing, then it isn't a part of the original "authentic" colouring. It is so easy to clean up ages now (if they can do it with old films they can do it with cards), I'm surprised there wasn't an attempt to make them look as they were when new, track down the paper type etc.

I have quite a lot of old papers, engravings and manuscripts (I have also tea-stained many photocopies over the years which I used for collaging fake documents in artwork, lining boxes etc!) and - I know this is subjective - but the tone just doesn't feel right. YMMV etc etc, but there is something about the colour which doesn't quite ring true to me. I think of it as very subtle US Games recolouring.

Bear in mind any 'restoration' work in photoshop is always going to be conjectural too. You can only reconstruct how you 'think' the colours would have looked. We're so used to seeing photos of the more cleanly coloured Pam A's and I have to admit, I was quite surprised when I saw the commemorative deck for the first time. Until then, I'd had no idea that the Roses and Lilies deck was a separate printing and edition. I just assumed the first few Pam A's had been printed with a different back. Personally speaking, I'm happy with the PCS commemorative deck in the sense that it's an accurate reproduction of one of the oldest surviving copies of the deck as it survives with us today. My only disappointment is that US Games didn't see fit to reproduce it with the original Roses and Lilies back. I like the new back design but it seems to defeat the object of authenticity somehow. I also can't help thinking it's another one of US Games's copyright protection ploys.

Out of interest, does anyone know how many Roses and Lilies decks are known to be still in existance? I know Truelight has one and Stuart Kaplan has another but these are the only two I've ever heard mentioned to date.

Chris. xx

The 78th Fool said:

I don't think US Games have artificially aged or 'tea stained' the images on the PCS Commemorative deck. The colouring may be down to two reasons.

1. Truelight says her genuine Roses and LIlies deck appears a little lighter than the US Games repro. This may be down to the print process and the new printers being used by US Games.

2. The brown discolouration on the card images may have much to do with the card stock of Stuart Kaplan's original deck degrading over time. The cardstock used for the Roses and Lilies edition seems to have been quite cheap (The 1910 edition, the Pam A was said to be being printed on 'superior card stock'). Cheap card stock will almost certainly not have been acid free and it is the acid content in paper products that reacts with air and causes the paper or card to go brown with the passing of time. You often see this with old paperbacks.

It may be that Truelight's copy of the Roses and Lilies deck is better preserved than Stuart Kaplan's. If you look at the US Games repro, some cards are worse than others. The Hanged Man seems to be the darkest of all. It's probably been the card stored at the top of the deck for the longest period of time, gaining more light and air exposure. It may also have been the most handled card.

Click to expand...

I don't really think that US Games has artifically aged the pack either. When comparing it to my genuine Roses&Lilies, the colours actually are very close. The commemorative set does give off this slightly darker feel and the greys sometimes are darker. But that could indeed be for any of the reasons you mentioned above.

Personally, I think it has everything to do with the printing process. The Roses&Lilies deck was printed by lithography. You can still see the lines in the image of how the printing was build up. The commemorative set was printed very differently. It only seems natural to me that the colours would come out slightly different. And of course the original deck didn't have the lamination that the modern deck does, that could also be a factor. But like I said, it is a 'bit' darker, but not that much and the colours are actually very close to the original!

And indeed, I don't know the state of Stuart Kaplan's pack. I have seen it in Chicago (the moment I fell in love with this particular deck). But only glanced at it and I didn't have my own copy then. There may be differences there.

As for the card stock, I know it says the Pam A crackled back is printed on superior cardstock. But the cardstock between the two A versions is not that different. The crackled back is heavier and the cards are shinier indeed. The Roses&Lilies seem to have more saturated colours. Both cardstocks are quite thick.

But I do have to say, if you compare the crackled back Pam A to the commemorative set, you will find it to be more different. It really is a reproduction of the Roses&Lilies and that one has significant differences to the crackled back. We should really start calling them differently maybe, then both Pam A.

The 78th Fool said:

Out of interest, does anyone know how many Roses and Lilies decks are known to be still in existance? I know Truelight has one and Stuart Kaplan has another but these are the only two I've ever heard mentioned to date.
Chris. xx

Click to expand...

So far, that are the only two known in existence. With a blue back that is. There seems to be another copy with a brown Roses&Lilies back somewhere in a museum. Jensen mentions that one in his articles. Maybe one day another one will pop up.

And yes, I think it was a surprise to everyone to see that the Roses&Lilies and the crackled back Pam-A's are actually quite different. Even the cut-offs at the images is different. The Roses&Lilies images often are bigger, so they don't even fit on the card very well, sometimes there is hardly a border. One of the most striking differences I noticed straight away was the mountain in the lovers. Where the usual RWS and the crackled back version shows this grid structure, the Roses&Lilies version actually has a more solid colouring of the mountain. The other clear one are the boots on the 7 of pentacles. The RWS/crackled back version gives us different coloured boots, the Roses&Lilies shows us boots that are the same colour.

Anyway, I am glad I can share some of this information with all of you, since I have access to this deck. We would be guessing even more if only Stuart Kaplan had a copy.

Thanks Truelight The brown backed Roses and Lilies deck sounds fascinating - I'd love to see photos of that one! It's sad there are only two copies of the blue roses and lilies known to have survived but it makes me value the commercially reproduced deck even more now.

Chris. xx

roppo said:

At least we know the size of the PCS original drawings; 100mm by 174mm.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that roppo! I'm always curious to know the sizes of the original art work.

Like Le Fanu, I found the Commemorative edition faux-aged looking. I passed on getting it. Fortunately the deck will soon fall out of copyright so we may finally get better facsimile editions.

Abrac said:

The best evidence I've seen suggests the Commemorative was the true original. One can only guess as to why US Games decided to call the blue-green one "Original." It's been a source of confusion ever since.

Click to expand...

I was told by Kaplan that it was loaned/given? to him by Sybil Waite's heirs as AE Waite's own copy from which to make a replica, and so it was assumed to be from the original printing.

truelighth said:

I don't really think that US Games has artifically aged the pack either. When comparing it to my genuine Roses&Lilies, the colours actually are very close. The commemorative set does give off this slightly darker feel and the greys sometimes are darker.

Click to expand...

A bunch of us saw and got to handle Kaplan's Roses&Lilies deck at the Chicago ITS conference—just after he got it on ebay. I remember it as being in remarkably good condition with little or no fading and very minor discoloration. I think that the darkness of the deck is probably the result of the coating put on the cards. I've noticed that the press-proofs of decks usually have much better color than the actual press run and was told that the varnish or coating darkens then and changes some colors more than others. Also, the Thoth deck is a good example of how the colors can vary even within the same edition of a deck.

Some of the PamA-crackle-back decks that I've seen are in as pristine a condition as if they were new.