Llewellyn's Classic Tarot

ravynangel

rwcarter said:
Yeah, I've never been fond of the Universal. It's not bad, but it falls short of what it's trying to be - a viable alternative to the RWS. And while there's obviously some sort of agreement between Llewellyn and Lo Scarabeo, I'm sure Llewellyn would rather use its own images in its books than another company's images, no matter how close the relationship with that company.


When I had "more money than sense" as I'm sure my mother would've so lovingly told me had she still been alive when my collecting was in full swing, I would've bought the deck despite the backs. I have a lot less disposable income now so am more discerning with what I buy. And those backs are enough to make me not spend my limited tarot budget on that deck. ;)


It's been quite some time since I've read one of her books from cover to cover. I've thumbed through other books here and there though. So I personally don't have enough sense of her as a writer to buy something on faith that it'll be good.

From the cards shown here at Aeclectic, I like the addition of the rain in the 8 Swords. It gives the card an added air of "just when you thought it can't get any worse, it does!" I like the figure in the 7 Swords climbing down the mountain as that makes the theft even more extraordinary because he's risking life and limb in a fall, especially since he's only using one hand with that rope. I like the smiling Death stepping over the fallen King.

I think the Magician's table is way too small. I think the proportion of some of the elements in the Priestess is off. Especially with the 6 pointed star in the lantern, the Hermit immediately makes me think of Moses. There's something about the KnC's expression that I don't like, but I can't put my finger on it. None of those things is as bad as the card backs though.

Rodney
Click to expand...


deleted :)
 

desertrat

rwcarter said:
I like the images. I hate the backs. (shudder) I know what they were going for (Roses and Lilies ;) ), but I'd have to rate that as one of my least favorite card backs. And I'm usually not bothered one way or the other about card backs.
Click to expand...

Wow. I felt the exact opposite when I opened my copy. I really LIKED the backs, and frowned over the fronts. :bugeyed: Oh well, I've never been good at fitting in.
 

gregory

rwcarter said:
And while there's obviously some sort of agreement between Llewellyn and Lo Scarabeo, I'm sure Llewellyn would rather use its own images in its books than another company's images, no matter how close the relationship with that company.
Rodney
Click to expand...

For the record - the agreement between Llewellyn and Lo Scarabeo is simple. Llewellyn distribute Lo Scarabeo decks in North America (and get to put their logo on the boxes which I REALLY object to, as they did none of the work, but...)

The end.

Publishing, artwork etc do not come into it. It's all basically to get the decks out there more easily.

I know there are a zillion RWS clones out there - but for people who want the RWS imagery, as you might say, in a more appealing format but sans cats, unicorns or any added extras - I like the look of this one. I have seen FAR worse backs. You should see one that Ric showed me once, when they were thinking of using it for a reprinted deck - I think he wanted someone - a potential buyer ! - to say GOD NO !! which I did. Mercifully they saw sense just in time - I THINK.... At least this one is reversible (isn't it ?) (checks) (yes it is !)

I think I have read all Barbara's books - even including the basic one for the original Gilded, which I hadn't even noticed was hers until a thread here. I have no doubt I will value this one, but it will be interesting to see how much background info she draws in.
 

Lee

I have to say, I like decks like this. To me, they offer a refreshing change from the tendency of some deck creators to create more and more rarified experiences which sometimes don't end up being very useful from a reading perspective.

I'll agree that the world probably doesn't need a lot more decks that are simply redrawings of the RWS, but this deck isn't like that. Like the Morgan-Greer, Hanson-Roberts, Fez-Moroccan and many other decks, it uses generally the same pseudo-Arthurian setting but has many differences and creative takes. When viewing all the cards in Angelo's video, there seemed to be interesting new ideas -- some large, some small -- going on in almost every card.

When I sit down with a deck, I'm not always looking for a transformative esthetic experience. Sometimes -- often -- I just want to relax and enjoy myself with a deck of cards. A new deck which is familiar enough so that I don't have to tie my brain into knots trying to understand it, yet different enough to give me some new perspectives on the cards, may be just the ticket.

The issue of kitsch is a double-edged sword. Sure, this deck's comic-book style can be seen as kitsch. But so can the RWS, the Thoth, the Dondorf Lenormand, and countless other decks that many of us take very seriously. In fact one might reasonably argue that the very idea of cartomancy is inherently kitschy.
 

Celtictarot

I have noted that.

When I have got a Lo Scarabeo deck from a US supplier, my cards were flimsier and had the Llewellyn logo on the side of the box. I have two Lo Scarabeo decks (I am in Europe) and the cards which are lo scarabeo only are of superior quality.
 

gregory

Celtictarot said:
I have noted that.

When I have got a Lo Scarabeo deck from a US supplier, my cards were flimsier and had the Llewellyn logo on the side of the box. I have two Lo Scarabeo decks (I am in Europe) and the cards which are lo scarabeo only are of superior quality.
Click to expand...
As far as I know they are from the same printers. I will enquire, but I do recall Ric saying "they are on the ship" here once...!
 

Le Fanu

Lee said:
The issue of kitsch is a double-edged sword. Sure, this deck's comic-book style can be seen as kitsch. But so can the RWS, the Thoth, the Dondorf Lenormand, and countless other decks that many of us take very seriously. In fact one might reasonably argue that the very idea of cartomancy is inherently kitschy.
Click to expand...
It isn't the comic book style that kitsches me out - it's the feeling of something done with very earnest intentions - "let us reference the roses and the liles" and somehow it feels a bit *oops*. That's kitsch for me; good intentions falling flat. Still, I think I actually prefer the backs to the fronts. When I want easy decks - and sometimes I do, like anyone - I go for the Hanson Roberts or Morgan Greer - there are loads of them. That's exactly it.

But I hope you know I share and respect your tastes Lee on many other things. Yes there's the Royal Fez Morrocan - but they were cloning the RWS in the 1950s - that's exactly my point. I feel an overwhelming worry about the wasted trees on this one - not normally something that leaps to mind with new decks. And now we have three decks called Classic / Classical now which always confuses threads.

However, it does please me that Llewellyn are big on borderlessness now. It always makes the cards so much more welcoming.
 

gregory

The silver witchcraft WOULD be thicker - it has silvered edges. Sorry - but I don't buy into this one. I'll report back when I hear from Lo Scarabeo.
 

ann823

I kind of liked the look of this deck, but it looks like the same face was used over and over for both men and women and that would be hard for me to warm up to it.
 
Could anyone help identify this deck? A cool deck I found on Deviantart.