Sola-Busca Versions

Abrac

I've recently developed a strong connection with this deck and have been surfing for any info I can find about it. There seems to be several different versions of it, all with different names that sound and look sorta the same, but are not. So I thought this might be a good opportunity to start a thread and see if I could find some help sorting it all out.

The deck I have now I just received. It's a 2000 Lo Scarabeo/Llewellen edition, ISBN: 0738700185. It seems to be the most popular one at the momemt, I guess because it's the most readily-available. It's really nice, but it's not the one I thought I was getting. A lot of the reviews I read before I bought it said something about a reddish-brown back, but this one I got has a greenish back with angelic and animal figures on it. It seems the version with the reddish-brown back is an earlier, 1995 version. I'm not sure if it's even still in print. US Games also has a 1995 version with a different ISBN number (0880799528).

I found this site which shows the whole deck:

http://www.rusjoker.ru/WWPCM/decks05/d02394/d02394.htm

It shows the Scarabeo '95 version having a yellow and black box, while this site:

http://taintedtarot.co.uk/VAULT/SBdeck.html

shows a '95 Scarabeo version with the reddish-brown box that is popular now.

Gina M. Pace, in her review of the Sola-Busca:

http://www.wicce.com/solabusca.html

mentions something about Scarabeo changing their card size in '98. Maybe they changed the appearance of some of their boxes too.

Is there anyone out there who knows what I'm talking about and can help a guy out??????

-fof
 

Abrac

Thanks for the link Huck, I appreciate it.

That does clear up one question I had about "Senatus Venetus" on trump IV, and "Anno Ab Urbe Condito MLXX" on trump XIIII. Hurst's article mentions it, but on my deck it's not legible. If you didn't know about it you would never know it was there.

Huck, I noticed the link you posted leads to one of the pages I already referenced with a scan of the yellow and black box. Do you know if that's the only box the '95 version comes in, and if it's still in print?

-fof
 

Huck

fools_fool said:
Thanks for the link Huck, I appreciate it.

Huck, I noticed the link you posted leads to one of the pages I already referenced with a scan of the yellow and black box. Do you know if that's the only box the '95 version comes in, and if it's still in print?
-fof

We cooperate with Alexander Sukhorukow and the WWPCM, so these are his cards. I don't know about "modern versions of the Sola Busca", at least I've no special info, sorry. We focus on early Tarot history, 15th century.
 

DoctorArcanus

I am sorry, but I cannot help about the different Scarabeo editions.
The large and beautiful Scarabeo reproductions reachable from http://www.trionfi.com/0/j/d/solabusca/index.html make it clear that the cards by Lo Scarabeo have been entirely redrawn. I wonder where a good reproduction of the original photographs can be found (I think such black and white photos are at the British Museum).

When I look at these cards, (e.g. the ace of coins) I wonder what is original and what not. Is the motto "Trahor fatis" (which I think means "I am pulled by destiny") on the original card? The same sentence appears on the ace of cups.
And what about "Servir. Chi persevera infin o[t]tiene" ("To serve: he who keeps trying in the end reaches his goal")? Is this a modern interpolation?
I hope someday someone will publish a black and white deck that simply reproduces the original photographs as well as possible :)

Marco
 

Abrac

Hi DoctorArcanus

Thanks for the link. Those ARE nice images, no question! If there's a b/w reproduction of the originals out there somewhere, I haven't run across it. That's something I would be interested in as well.

I did find an actual 1995 Lo Scarabeo in the yellow and black box (used) at ABE Books and ordered it. Anxiously awaiting.

Thanks for your interpretations. I was using my Latin dictionary, trying to figure it out, and found "fatalis" which was defined as "relating to destiny or fate." So I was thinking "fatis" must mean something along similar lines. I don't know Latin or Italian so I really don't have a clue. I was reading the Sola-Busca article in The Encylopedia Of Tarot, Vol. II, and that didn't really help much either. Have you noticed Panfilio? In the Scarabeo version at the top of the card it says "Paneilic." Someone totally screwed up on that one!

-fof
 

DoctorArcanus

PANEILIC! I didn't notice that! Once again, I wonder if who messed things up is the artis who redraw the cards (who I think I read somewhere is Atanassov?).
Possibly, the writing on the original photo is so difficult to read that the 4th letter can be read as an E or an F and the last as a C or an O....
BTW, I think Panphilo is a greek name which means lover (philo) of everything (pan).

A search on google for "paneilic" does not produce any result.

A search for "paneilio" gives this single result, which I find funny: http://www.antiqueprints.com/proddetail.php?prod=e1768&cat=30
It is a reproduction of Palazzo Panfilio or Doria Pamphilj in Rome. Apparently, the spot near the F produced the same error at antiqueprints.com and Lo Scarabeo :)

As a resource for Latin, please try this link. I find it very useful, because it contains all the inflections of each word:
http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe
e.g. trahor fatis

Marco
 

Ross G Caldwell

Kaplan reproduces two different Sola Busca decks (selections) in vols. I and II of the Encyclopedia.

Vol. I, pp. 126-127 shows PANFILIO clearly, with the name written on the shield.

Vol. II, pp. 298-301 shows the name written at the top of the card, as what I would say is PANFILIO, but where the bottom of the F gets cut of by the cloak, so it could be confused with E. But why? And the final letter is clearly, absolutely, as O (and not C). "PANEILIC" is terribly sloppy.

It is clearly meant to be Panfilio, from the first deck, and it is hard to see how the artist who redrew the cards for Lo Scarabeo screwed up the letters.
 

Abrac

Thanks Ross

-fof
 

Abrac

Yippy! My Illuminating Ancient Tarots came today.

This deck, and the newer one, Ancient Enlightened Tarot (both by Lo Scarabeo), are definitely two different animals. After comparing the two, my opinion is that the AET is actually superior in almost every aspect except for the backs. The backs on the IAT are simply awesome! It was worth the price just to have a deck with these backs on it. It’s a reversible image of the 4/Wands in a rich reddish-brown that covers the whole back of the card.

The card stock on the AET seems better to me. Gina M. Pace, in her review of the IAT, made note of the fact that the cards tend to warp over time if not used. This was definitely the case with the deck I received today. They were warped and stiff; but after a few shuffles they loosened up and straightened out. The finishes are close to the same; however, the finish on the AET is slightly better, imo. It’s a little slicker and shinier and seems like it would offer better protection. The new box is made of better stock. The box my IAT came in is pretty flimsy. It was also a little more beat-up than I would have liked; but hey, that’s why God made tape, right. ;)

The images on the AET are of noticeably better quality. The colors are richer and more muted. This is especially noticeable on the Chalices and Wands. The content of the images is exactly the same on both decks. I do like the IAT title card better though. Here’s an image of it, the box, the backs, and the whole deck actually:
http://www.rusjoker.ru/WWPCM/decks05/d02394/d02394.htm
It comes with nine instructional cards in five languages as opposed to the AET which has a LWB.

There’s a 1995 copyright on the outside of the IAT box which the AET doesn’t have. In fact, I can’t find a copyright of any kind on the AET except in the LWB (2000). This is where I came up with the year 2000 in my earlier post. I assumed that because the LWB said 2000 then the deck must have also been published in 2000. Now I‘m not so sure. Again, Gina M. Pace, in her review, says that Lo Scarabeo increased the size of their decks slightly in 1998. The IAT is slightly smaller (60 x 115) than the AET (65 x 120). The IAT in the black and yellow box must have existed as an earlier incarnation through 1998, at which time it was replaced by the newer version in the reddish-brown box. The 2000 copyright on the LWB must simply reflect its own copyright. If anyone has additional info that could confirm or clarify, it would be most-appreciated. Many online sellers advertise the newer version as published in 1995, so it’s all a bit confusing.

I would still like to know if the IAT is in print or available new. The only place I know of where it might be available new is playingcardsales.com. They don‘t give a lot of details; but it doesn‘t say limited availability or oop anyway. I may fire off an e-mail to them and try to get the scoop.

I love both of these decks. They are each marvelous in their own way.

BTW, I picked up a copy of Sola Busca Tarot by Sofia Di Vincenzo. Most of what I had heard about this book didn’t really make me hopeful; but as it turns out, it’s a fantastic analysis of the Sola-Busca in relationship to alchemy!! The reviews all seem to echo the same sentiment: “This book doesn’t say anything about who the figures on these cards are.” I, too, was concerned about this and mainly bought the book for Berti’s preface; but was pleasantly surprised. Now, knowing exactly who all of these characters are seems less important. Looking at the cards as an instructional tool from an alchemical standpoint gives an entirely new perspective to study them from. Starting with Mato (base matter; lead), and ending with Nabuchodenasor (philosopher’s stone; gold). Alchemical images are scattered throughout the entire deck (7/Chalices, Q/Chalices, 7/Pents, 9/Pents to name a few). Also, compare 10/Chalices with Robert Place’s 10/Coins from the Alchemical Tarot for an interesting tidbit.

-fof