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

roppo

I noticed the USG R&L back is not faithful to the 1909 original. I made an illustration for that. (By the way the LoS R&L back is a photoshop product; even the number of the squares is different from the original).
 

Attachments

  • roselilycompa.jpg
    roselilycompa.jpg
    73.3 KB · Views: 306

Seyner

He looks good and beautiful ! I hope he will be released in french... :)
 

JasonLion

There was a limited edition by one of the European publishers (perhaps AGM?) printed for the centennial with gold edges that was really quite nice. It has the rose and lily back and quite good Pam-A images and colors. You used to be able to find them on EBay but they have become rare.
 

Le Fanu

The Smith-Waite Centennial is a joke. An obvious attempt by U$ Games to cash in on a trend in the market. They have every right to do so, but the deck has to be evaluated with this in mind.
mmm.. I wonder what the trend is? Perhaps the trend for all things vintage therefore producing an "aged" deck which isn't genuinely aged. The RWS itself could hardly be called a trend.

I personally have difficulty unreservedly loving the Centennial deck (although I do go back and forth with it - full-sized, tinned etc etc), although I certainly understand why so many people do like it. I (like many) think it goes overboard on the aged aspect.

I also tend to think that it is yet another not-quite-the original-RWS-as-we-would-like-it" project, so that yet another version of the RWS is created, patented, copyrighted and the whole issue gets murkier. I think this will go on ad infinitum But a deck has been created which many love. I do actually love the lines, I have to say. I think this version seems to have clearer, sharper lines, but then the brown-ness of everything gets in the way. I honestly think a 1993 "printed in Belgium" Original RWS deck actually feels more gently vintage to me.

Plus the copyright-free Blue Box RWS is genuinely lovelier in terms of the fronts, I think - but it has those ugly plaid backs and then I remember that this one missed out on an opportunity to create decent, fitting backs so it's not that much ahead for me.
 

Zephyros

Le Fanu, I think you've said it best. Be that as it may, I just ordered it... with mixed feelings. When already the scans give me slight heebeejeebees with a dirty, artificial look, I have doubts about how much better it will actually look. But I ordered the set, and I must admit the supplementary material piques my interest more than the deck itself.
 

McFaire

I think the commemorative is a sincere tribute to Pamela Coleman Smith (which has been due for a long time) rather than a trend, joke, legal maneuver, or mercenary tactic.

Is it the end-all, be-all? No, of course not. But that was not the objective. I think the objective was to recognize PCS on the centennial and create a product that just about everyone could afford and enjoy.

Among the currently in-print affordable editions, many people are enjoying the Centennial tremendously. I think if you were to ask the same people, of all the versions ever printed, which they find most satisfying, you'd get different answers.

At the price point that USG was targeting, I think they did a great job. After all, the entire set with two books, the deck, the slip case, the extras, and delivery to your doorstep is only about $25.
 

Le Fanu

Le Fanu, I think you've said it best. Be that as it may, I just ordered it... with mixed feelings. When already the scans give me slight heebeejeebees with a dirty, artificial look, I have doubts about how much better it will actually look. But I ordered the set, and I must admit the supplementary material piques my interest more than the deck itself.
OK, be prepared for an improbably murky wash over all cards. Not old, just sort of light brown. But concentrate on the lines (that would be my advice to prepare you for its arrival) - the lines give a sense of sharper draughts(wo)manship to very familiar images. You'll realise how blotchy some versions of the RWS are. At last we can make out the King and Queen of Pentacles.

The accompanying book is fascinating. Seeing her drawings, her distinct style, in images which are not tarot images is a little eerie.
 

Richard

Le Fanu, I think you've said it best. Be that as it may, I just ordered it... with mixed feelings. When already the scans give me slight heebeejeebees with a dirty, artificial look, I have doubts about how much better it will actually look. But I ordered the set, and I must admit the supplementary material piques my interest more than the deck itself.

For me, the quality of the printing surpasses that of all other RWS versions with which I am familiar. The usual sloppiness of the RWS sometimes drives people away to re-creations, such as the Universal or Radiant, which, although pleasant enough, preserve neither the ambience nor the fine detail of the more authentic decks. The backs of the new deck could be better, but I tend to ignore the backs anyhow.

I now wish that USG would produce a new edition of the Albano-Waite with the same careful attention to the printing.
 

gregory

Nah. Because USG slightly changed the dimensions and that ANNOYS me - and the colours aren't quite true, either. Now if Tarot PRODUCTIONS would do one...
 

Zephyros

I actually don't mind if it is a "product," in the sense that it is a made-up version of something. The only versions I've had have been the yellow-box, which I think have some worth in themselves. I'm not really looking for historical accuracy since all I have to compare with is, indeed, the "bad" version. I've never been into Tarot historical accuracy anyway.

What interests me is how good that manufactured product actually is. From what I've seen of the scans it looks like the normal version's lines fixed up a bit and then artificially aged. I would have liked, of course, a "best possible version," whether Pam A or B, that wasn't aged. That aging is what gives me a slight "Disney" vibe.

Can anyone scan some comparisons between the yellow-box and this one? Doesn't matter which cards, make it the "showpieces" that really show off the new deck in your opinion. Doesn't have to be that many, either. I'll be getting mine only in February since I "ordered" the set as a gift from my mother, who's only coming to visit then.