Smith-Waite Centennial deck is THE definitive RWS -- a must-have!

Ambrosia

I'm another who loves this version. I have the stand-alone Centennial, and the pocket version in a tin. Love, love love them both. My absolute go-to's.

Interesting about the dot though, I'd not noticed it missing. Do you think it's because the dot would have been Pixie's final flourish for her signature on her art, and if she didn't actually sign the backs herself then having the dot would kind of be wrong considering she never signed it? I dunno, I'm clutching at straws here lol.
 

Richard

I'm another who loves this version. I have the stand-alone Centennial, and the pocket version in a tin. Love, love love them both. My absolute go-to's.

Interesting about the dot though, I'd not noticed it missing. Do you think it's because the dot would have been Pixie's final flourish for her signature on her art, and if she didn't actually sign the backs herself then having the dot would kind of be wrong considering she never signed it? I dunno, I'm clutching at straws here lol.

Like most people, I don't use the backs in divination, just the fronts. I pay no attention to the backs, although unavoidably there is a peripheral impression of their dominant color, which in this case is what might be called a dull, country blue, definitely not one of my favorite colors. However, this in no way affects my use of the cards for divination or meditation.
 

Aeric

The yellow-box deck - especially the early AGMueller printing - comes pretty darn close. I've sat with a group where we compared a Pam-A, Pam-B and modern yellow box, card-by-card, and it was surprising how close the yellow box came to the A.

The brown crackle-back (Pam-A) is actually the second printing on better card-stock than the Roses & Lilies printing. Both are complete, but the Roses & Lilies was the first.

An exact replica would have to include age blemishes, etc. But then, modern printing techniques would change the effect anyway - especially the coatings used to preserve the ink and allow the surface to survive shuffling. I suppose one could try an extremely expensive chromolithography version on almost the exact same paper (if such could be found). But few could pay for a copy printed that way.
Oh really. Huh. I was close to hunting for a first Yellow edition a while back, but they get snatched up quickly. How does Blue Box compare to Pam-A?

Aha. I had thought that the Rose back from the Original Rider-Waite was secondary, as the art is Pam-C.

The copyright is what really frustrates me about US Games; they have to change something. They'll give you an original back, but the front can't be Pam-A. If the front is Pam-A, the back has to be changed, or the colours slightly different, just to protect their ownership. It sucks for me that Original Rider-Waite is still the closest we have to a historically accurate deck, but it's not Pam-A. <_<

Modern printings of a colour-accurate Pam-A Rose without blemishes will probably be first, with modern cardstock. I can only see a stained version created by smaller artists who care for the artifact's physical condition as much as the design, similar to the Marseille artists who produce blemished versions.
 

Richard

Is Pam-A necessarily the first RWS? My understanding is that it is otherwise, but I don't recall which is considered to be first.

ETA. Does it really matter anyhow, except to historians?
 

Teheuti

The Pam-A "Rose &Lily" back was produced quickly for the December 1909 Christmas Fair. When the card-stock proved faulty (it separated) - a new edition was printed early in 1910 on superior card stock (Pam-A "crackle back") and purchasers of the Rose & Lily edition were offered a replacement. Thus, only a couple of Rose & Lily decks have survived. The two editions are almost identical except for the back and the fact that an additional sliver of image appears on some of the R&L cards.
 

Yelell

It does kind of matter. I've been spending time looking through the scans of the early RWS decks and comparing some of the cards. The magician is a card where there are some differences. The images on edge of the table are more defined in the A, and not clear in the B and C. It makes sense to me to hear the Pam A decks were first.
 

Attachments

  • magician.JPG
    magician.JPG
    170.2 KB · Views: 325

Aeric

ETA. Does it really matter anyhow, except to historians?
Sure it matters, and not just to historians. RWS is the iconic deck to the vast majority of users in North America. Whether or not one actually cares about the history, for many collectors a modern facsimile or a clean reproduction of the first printed version of the biggest deck would be a treasure. Ask Marseille collectors why some prefer blemished facsimiles to clean repros.

I can understand that a person might even find the Centennial's unique tint better than the oldest deck that lacks it completely. Maybe it's a calming colour, maybe it puts them in the reading mood better. They may even like the blue monogrambacks better than the Rose or Crackle backs. That's more subjective.

Finally, I can't relate to this, but on here I've seen a few claims that earlier versions of the RWS, such as the Blue Box, "read better" than a modern Yellow Box with a bar code, website, plain font, and copyright dates. Now that's a far more subjective reason than the accuracy of the designs. By that logic, the oldest surviving decks are the most readable versions ever, but nobody can get their hands on them so we settle for readings from inferior editions or clones published by US Games. A head scratcher to me. An accurate reproduction of the oldest surviving deck would likely be, for them, more readable than Centennial, or anything that came before it.

The Pam-A "Rose &Lily" back was produced quickly for the December 1909 Christmas Fair. When the card-stock proved faulty (it separated) - a new edition was printed early in 1910 on superior card stock (Pam-A "crackle back") and purchasers of the Rose & Lily edition were offered a replacement. Thus, only a couple of Rose & Lily decks have survived. The two editions are almost identical except for the back and the fact that an additional sliver of image appears on some of the R&L cards.
Ah I see. But given today's technology, I doubt it would be difficult to produce a Pam-A Rose. The scans I've seen, I believe from that Japanese collector, are of one of the oldest surviving decks. It's not difficult to reproduce those on new cardstock, add a Rose back, and cut to order.

The question is who would do it and market it first: small deck designers or larger companies. But after the expiration, it's just a question of choosing who you believe deserves your money.
 

Teheuti

It does kind of matter. I've been spending time looking through the scans of the early RWS decks and comparing some of the cards. The magician is a card where there are some differences. The images on edge of the table are more defined in the A, and not clear in the B and C. It makes sense to me to hear the Pam A decks were first.
I don't think there's any question that the Pam-A decks were first. Have you heard otherwise?
 

Teheuti

I think you'll find that even within a single edition there are differences in the printings. I've compared several no-copyright line, AGMueller printings (pre-1975) and have found notable differences in the intensity of the colors and the black lines. Likewise differences would not be uncommon in the original chromolithography editions based as simply on the ink coverage at the beginning of a run and that at the end of the run. While subtle these differences can be magnified by age and then, if viewing online, by scan resolutions and settings.