Le Fanu
Me neither. I have a few decks with the Llewellyn logo on the box and the cardstock is the same as the LoS ones. And I speak as one with multiple copies of the same decks!
Llewellyn's Classic Tarot
kalliope
I agree that naming yet another deck the Classic was a poor choice!
You know, I totally get what Le Fanu is saying about the number of nearly-identical RWS clones, but I have to say there was a time when I was looking for exactly such a thing. When I first started out I had a few decks, but I still heavily relied on books. My goal was to really learn and absorb the "standard/common" meanings everyone talked about, and the RWS scenes act as a good mnemonic for doing that. The RWS art & colors repelled me back then, so I went looking for something that had very similar scenes but drawn in a style I found more appealing. I still had a hard time finding something I liked from all the clones available! I'd have welcomed even more options! I ended up using the Robin Wood and then the Lo Scarabeo Universal for a few years.
The idea of being a beginner using a more unique deck sounds great, but I don't think I ever would have made the jump without a good ol' clone. I enjoy using the more creative decks today, and often like to read the images directly, but it was the RWS-But-Not decks that allowed me to do more than that. There must be a market enough for these decks since they keep getting produced, so my guess is that many beginners feel the same way.
This new Classic Tarot isn't really my cup of tea, but the colors are nice and the borderless cards are great. I don't hate the backs, but they do look a bit like a tablecloth.
You know, I totally get what Le Fanu is saying about the number of nearly-identical RWS clones, but I have to say there was a time when I was looking for exactly such a thing. When I first started out I had a few decks, but I still heavily relied on books. My goal was to really learn and absorb the "standard/common" meanings everyone talked about, and the RWS scenes act as a good mnemonic for doing that. The RWS art & colors repelled me back then, so I went looking for something that had very similar scenes but drawn in a style I found more appealing. I still had a hard time finding something I liked from all the clones available! I'd have welcomed even more options! I ended up using the Robin Wood and then the Lo Scarabeo Universal for a few years.
The idea of being a beginner using a more unique deck sounds great, but I don't think I ever would have made the jump without a good ol' clone. I enjoy using the more creative decks today, and often like to read the images directly, but it was the RWS-But-Not decks that allowed me to do more than that. There must be a market enough for these decks since they keep getting produced, so my guess is that many beginners feel the same way.
This new Classic Tarot isn't really my cup of tea, but the colors are nice and the borderless cards are great. I don't hate the backs, but they do look a bit like a tablecloth.
Aranel
An RWS clone with a Barbara Moore companion book?
This might be just what I need to help me get back into tarot. I gave up with trying to learn the RWS as I couldn't get on with the artwork. Even the Universal Waite with the prettier artwork didn't really help. But I do want to learn the RWS and Barbara Moore wrote the companion book for the deck I managed to click with (Mystic Faerie) and it was because of the book that I clicked with that deck.
I might have to get this. Although I've got so many new decks recently but I don't want to start with them until I've figured out the RWS. But I did just get the Steampunk Tarot and I know that's supposed to be RWS based and obviously the book is written by Barbara. But still, that's steampunk, this is very RWS.....
My bank account is very grateful for those horrible backs. Otherwise I probably would have talked (written?) myself into pre-ordering it whilst writing this post.
This might be just what I need to help me get back into tarot. I gave up with trying to learn the RWS as I couldn't get on with the artwork. Even the Universal Waite with the prettier artwork didn't really help. But I do want to learn the RWS and Barbara Moore wrote the companion book for the deck I managed to click with (Mystic Faerie) and it was because of the book that I clicked with that deck.
I might have to get this. Although I've got so many new decks recently but I don't want to start with them until I've figured out the RWS. But I did just get the Steampunk Tarot and I know that's supposed to be RWS based and obviously the book is written by Barbara. But still, that's steampunk, this is very RWS.....
My bank account is very grateful for those horrible backs. Otherwise I probably would have talked (written?) myself into pre-ordering it whilst writing this post.
gregory
OK and now- from the mouth of Lo Scarabeo themselves:
So that's a canard down the tubes, OK ? To spell it out - the ones in the US are EXACTLY the same card stock as the ones without the Llewellyn logo on the box.
RiccardoLS
Hi there
(ages since I logged in the purple field ^^)
Gregory asked me If I could shed some light on the different editions of an LS product, especially Llewellyn editions.
As I am the first to realize that this is probably OT in this thread, I would also kindly ask the Moderators to move it/ delete it as they see fit. I apologize in advance but it's too long, and I wouldn't know what would be the proper thing to do, so I leave to them.
Collaboration between LS and LL is stronger and closer than merely distribution.
For instance, there is an unofficial agreement and LL can include LS images in their book.
(they always dutifully ask for permission, and permission is always granted).
We support each other in marketing and occasionally production.
However, regarding LS products, they are always the SAME if produced for US market or "rest of the world" market. The only differences may be the boxes which are printed together, but the LL ones have a different ISBN and the LL logo. But the deck inside it's always the same.
Supplier (and as such production specifications) may change from product to product (and rarely from KIT edition and deck only edition), and may change from different editions of the same product (in different years). But it NEVER changes between LS and LL distribution.
All the best,
Riccardo
(ages since I logged in the purple field ^^)
Gregory asked me If I could shed some light on the different editions of an LS product, especially Llewellyn editions.
As I am the first to realize that this is probably OT in this thread, I would also kindly ask the Moderators to move it/ delete it as they see fit. I apologize in advance but it's too long, and I wouldn't know what would be the proper thing to do, so I leave to them.
Collaboration between LS and LL is stronger and closer than merely distribution.
For instance, there is an unofficial agreement and LL can include LS images in their book.
(they always dutifully ask for permission, and permission is always granted).
We support each other in marketing and occasionally production.
However, regarding LS products, they are always the SAME if produced for US market or "rest of the world" market. The only differences may be the boxes which are printed together, but the LL ones have a different ISBN and the LL logo. But the deck inside it's always the same.
Supplier (and as such production specifications) may change from product to product (and rarely from KIT edition and deck only edition), and may change from different editions of the same product (in different years). But it NEVER changes between LS and LL distribution.
All the best,
Riccardo
gregory
Thanks Ric. Don't be a stranger here !
So - to those thinking this Classic deck may have LS stock because Llewellyn distribute decks through Llewellyn - if the stock IS comparable - that will NOT be the reason !
I think this discussion IS on topic, as the questions relate to the stock of this Llewellyn deck and comparability was raised.
So - to those thinking this Classic deck may have LS stock because Llewellyn distribute decks through Llewellyn - if the stock IS comparable - that will NOT be the reason !
I think this discussion IS on topic, as the questions relate to the stock of this Llewellyn deck and comparability was raised.
Melia
I like this deck. Thanks for sharing the links. I don't love the card back design, but I don't dislike it. Could anything be worse than those horrid, blue tartan backs? The only card I dislike is the moon; otherwise I think it's a good, 'classic' RWS deck, and it's one I will purchase.
Linfang
I bought the Fool's Dog App solely for the book and was a bit disappointed. There are much better companion books by Barbara Moore. This one feels somehow shallow to me.
Did anyone notice the description for the seven of swords? It describes some tents in the distance, but I can't see them on the cards. These small blunders can really turn me off...
Did anyone notice the description for the seven of swords? It describes some tents in the distance, but I can't see them on the cards. These small blunders can really turn me off...
Miss Divine
I dunno why so many people always rave about Barbara Moore's books. I agree that she has written some awesome books, but I've read others I liked...not so much. There are other tarot authors whose writings appeal to me more.
daphne
Can you please give some examples of better books by her?
