University Press v. Original v. Universal Waite

Just which one reflects the original drawings? All of them are very close. But when you look at the cards it's not difficult to see that the expressions on the characters are different from one deck to the next.

For example, look closely at The Fool -- although it applies to almost all the cards -- the plain US Games, the University Press, Albano Waite all have the same expressions. The expression -- and the whole face -- is re-drawn in the "Original" and re-drawn yet again in the Universal Waite version. And the right hand holding stick carrying his bundle over his shoulder.

What really got me flummoxed was when I was looking at the 7 Swords. In one version he looks simply like a thief. In another version he looks more like a peace-nik foiling the war-makers. Then I realized that the 'flavor' of many other cards is altered as well.

I know, I know. Just read the cards as you see them in front of you.

But do tell: Just which deck reflects Pixie's original??!!!

Well, among the four decks I believe the plain USG reflects the PCS original best.

roppo said:

Well, among the four decks I believe the plain USG reflects the PCS original best.

Click to expand...

Reassuring to hear this from you, roppo! It is a deck I have always liked and of all my repro RWS decks, this is the on I tend to gravitate most towards.

This ain't no steenking popularity contest! I want ANSWERS, you hear me? ANSWERS!

We know that likely the Universal Waite is not the original. I like the University Press' version, too, because they were the first ones I bought back in 1968. But if USG published the 'Original', did they go back to the *original* drawings or just have some freaking new artist "clean up" the University Press version?

Not only the faces but small details, too! Compare the cards. Small details are changed. Hair. Mountain peaks. Are these IMPROVEMENTS? mumble. grumble.

Only Pixie knows!

Tag_jorrit said:

This ain't no steenking popularity contest! I want ANSWERS, you hear me? ANSWERS!

We know that likely the Universal Waite is not the original. I like the University Press' version, too, because they were the first ones I bought back in 1968. But if USG published the 'Original', did they go back to the *original* drawings or just have some freaking new artist "clean up" the University Press version?

Not only the faces but small details, too! Compare the cards. Small details are changed. Hair. Mountain peaks. Are these IMPROVEMENTS? mumble. grumble.

Click to expand...

Just get yourself a Pam A or B or something, then you don't have to worry about comparing . It never crossed my mind to think of the University Books as authentic...

So, the way the cards were originally printed via lithography, Pixie's artwork was taken by the printers and some shop monkey re-drew her line drawings onto the stone. You can see differences among the Pam A, B, C. etc. due to this.

In other words, the lines that were printed are not the lines that Pixie drew, only a close re-drawing of them.

Which one reflects her original art the best? I do not know! I'm no help am I?

I think I remember hearing that the simple black-and-white drawings in the Pictorial Key are her original art, but I don't know if it's true.

In his essay "Tarot: the Wheel of Fortune" (The Occult Review 1909 Dec.) A.E. Waite wrote that he took the images of four Trumps appeaed in the pages "direct from the drawings". So we can safely assume they are photos and most true to the PCS originals. The images found in Pam-A and The Pictorial Key to the Tarot are almost identical with the OR ones. I believe the Pam-A was a product of what is called "photo-lithography", line works done by photographic process, then colors put on by lithographic one.

the OR Fool (300dpi scanning image)
http://grimoire.blog.ocn.ne.jp/doll/files/RWS1909or00.jpg

Line drawings of Pam-B or C (and of the USG "Original" Rider-Waite) were most probably done by lithographers. They did a rough work, even sometimes deforming the PCS signatures.

roppo said:

In his essay "Tarot: the Wheel of Fortune" (The Occult Review 1909 Dec.) A.E. Waite wrote that he took the images of four Trumps appeaed in the pages "direct from the drawings". So we can safely assume they are photos and most true to the PCS originals. The images found in Pam-A and The Pictorial Key to the Tarot are almost identical with the OR ones. I believe the Pam-A was a product of what is called "photo-lithography", line works done by photographic process, then colors put on by lithographic one.

the OR Fool (300dpi scanning image)
http://grimoire.blog.ocn.ne.jp/doll/files/RWS1909or00.jpg

Line drawings of Pam-B or C (and of the USG "Original" Rider-Waite) were most probably done by lithographers. They did a rough work, even sometimes deforming the PCS signatures.

Click to expand...

Therefore the images in the 'Original' deck are not the originals. Sigh. What about the ones in the "Commemorative" edition -- are they not the originals either?

BTW, what are "Pam A, B, C"?

Tag_jorrit said:

Therefore the images in the 'Original' deck are not the originals. Sigh. What about the ones in the "Commemorative" edition -- are they not the originals either?

BTW, what are "Pam A, B, C"?

Click to expand...

hi Tag_Jorrit

USG Commemorative Edition is based on Pam-A Roses & Lilies deck and its line work is almost identical with that of The Occult Review or The Picitorial Key to the Tarot.

Pam-A, Pam-B etc are K. Frank Jensen's terminology for classification of early RWS editions and accepted by most of us RWS fans. There have been some discussions about "which is earler, Pam-A or Pam-B?". But I believe there's no controversy about the faithfulness to the original PCS drawing between A and B.

For the detail you can read Jensen's PDF file here.
http://www.manteia-online.dk/waite-smith/tpc-article.pdf