The Llewellyn Classic are thicker and matte. They feel nice in the hand and do not slide.
I've not noticed any hunchness to the figures. As for The Fool it seems just a different pose and clothing, his posture is not in an open stride but I don't get tension from him, its more non focus or in sort of inward focus. Like when you are walking and oblivious, just in the moment.
The knight of wands is not galloping but in the RWS he is not either.
Many of the figures in this deck are in motion, ie the Hermit, which gives a positive feel and energy to this deck. It doesn't feel stagnant or posed. The vibrant colouring adds to this feeling.
Fair enough. What I dislike about the Knight of Wands isn't that he's not galloping (I know what the PCS version looks like), it's that the horse looks like it is standing instead of rearing up with yet-to-be-released energy.
It's interesting that you mention the Hermit, because from what I've seen the Llewellyn Classic version has such a bold, assertive, outward energy that I feel like it's unrecognisable from the RWS counterpart except for his costume. This card is one where the Sharman-Caselli and RWS are almost the same.
I will note that although I'm relatively new to tarot and am not qualified to critique a deck for its symbols or accuracy, I try to keep my criticisms outside of those areas, and to only those I think are important. Human body language I think is fair game.
It's also possible that I'm wrongly assuming the five or so Llewellyn cards I've examined are representative of the whole deck.
I concur with the reports that the Sharman-Caselli card stock is poor. I have two copies. Book Depository sent me the St Martins Press version instead of the US Games edition I ordered... twice in a row. [emoji23]