Rusty Neon
Rosanne said:
I understand [but someone please correct me if I'm incorrect] that, besides Waite, the artist (Colman-Smith) was also previously a Golden Dawn member.
Not a Golden Dawn deck
I understand [but someone please correct me if I'm incorrect] that, besides Waite, the artist (Colman-Smith) was also previously a Golden Dawn member.
truelighth
Fulgour said:I would be happy to agree with you, but what can I say?
You know, if it was me making the same claims as you,
some people would be more than happy to "disagree"
Well, I am not really the one to argue wether this is a Golden Dawn deck or not. I personally don't consider it so much a Golden Dawn deck, as it is very different. But I have been interested in the old Rider Waites for quite some time now and when I see some fact stated that I think is not true, I just have to speak up.
My point was just that the 1909 print run did come with the Key as far as we can tell now. That was the conclusion the experts in this field (like Frank Jensen) after a roses and lilies Pamela-A surfaced for the first time in 2003. This deck pre-dates all the other old Rider Waites that were found and is said to be printed in 1909. And this deck did come with Key in the red box.
Personally, I think we can thank Pamela Colman-Smith for the brilliance of the Rider Waite Smith deck in general. They key doesn't really seem to correspond with the images she drew on many occasions. There is also a rumor that Waite only overlooked the creation of the majors and left the creation of the minors to Pixie.
truelighth
Rusty Neon said:
Yes, Pamela Colman-Smith was also a member of the Golden Dawn. That is where Waite and she met.
Holly-Ivy
The RWS deck was published in December 1909 but the PKT was dated 1910 - the happens often in publishing when something is coming out at the end of the year. The following link http://home.comcast.net/~vilex/Adverts.html shows the original Occult Review adverstisement for the deck, from December of 1909. The magazine probably came out in November or so. Waite's article on the deck is in this issue. There is a bit of a disconnect between what he describes and what the line art from the deck shows, much like the PKT. Also, in this article, The Sun card is numbered XVIII and not XIX. I believe the rose & lilies backed deck came out first but for reasons of lining up the front and backs of the cards evenly, things quickly changed to the brown mottled back.
Rose & Lilies - 1909 the two known versions came with the book in a box
Brown mottled back - probably 1910 onwards
The ways these things were distributed were:
Deck and book
Deck only
Book only
Rose & Lilies - 1909 the two known versions came with the book in a box
Brown mottled back - probably 1910 onwards
The ways these things were distributed were:
Deck and book
Deck only
Book only
Fulgour
Hi Holly-Ivy
but there's still a sense of scepticism considering re-sale value.
Are we talking about clearly established publication dates, or,
something tantalizing for the auctioneer's block over on Ebay?
I'm willing to stretch my imagination if it helps clarify things,Holly-Ivy said:
but there's still a sense of scepticism considering re-sale value.
Are we talking about clearly established publication dates, or,
something tantalizing for the auctioneer's block over on Ebay?
Lillie
Isn't there meant to be a brown rose and lilies deck as well?
Where does that fit? (if it exists, and I am not imagining I read that)
I am really interested in these old decks. (not that I'll ever own one) But still, I am curious.
And how are they dated? There is an old, mud back RWS Pamela B on ebay now, but the man says there is no date on it, so how can it be dated?
Where does that fit? (if it exists, and I am not imagining I read that)
I am really interested in these old decks. (not that I'll ever own one) But still, I am curious.
And how are they dated? There is an old, mud back RWS Pamela B on ebay now, but the man says there is no date on it, so how can it be dated?
Cerulean
The dating can be done by this website...
http://home.comcast.net/~vilex/Cardbacks.html
And it has been very helpful to me, hope it works out for other questions....
Regards,
Cerulean
http://home.comcast.net/~vilex/Cardbacks.html
And it has been very helpful to me, hope it works out for other questions....
Regards,
Cerulean
Sophie
Fulgour said:
I'm not sure if it does. I have always found the symbolism jumbled, like stumbling across a curio shop full of objects from all over the world. In the Major Arcana, there does not seem to be any focus - any attempt at true synchretism. In the Minor Arcana, there is much more systematic development of unified themes.
If, as some think, Waite influenced the Major Arcana and left the Minors to Pixie Colman Smith, then her own mind was obviously far more focussed than his. But I don't know. I am going on the deck only.
Fulgour
If it was all just coming at us out of nowhere it'd be different,Helvetica said:
but it's a Tarot deck, and the Majors (however mysterious)
are a known commodity: just think Marseille and Oswald Wirth
and the Colman Smith images (although unique) will fit right in.
truelighth
Lillie said:
Hi Lillie,
Yes, there is one brown rose and lilies deck. As far as I know it is in the possession of U.S Games Systems. We are not sure yet how it fits in the timeline. Frank Jensen mentions it in his article about the early Rider Waites (good read btw if you are interested in these old packs):
http://www.tarotpassages.com/manteia.htm
The dates are usually tracebly by the accompaning book or advertisements and other information that tells us when a certain deck was published. It is not easy. Also, as more packs are studied, it becomes clearer in which period certain decks were published. The Pam-B that is on Ebay now probably dates from the 1920's-1930's. Most Pam-B decks come from that period.
