Traditional Tarot - Rider Waite

Zyfe

As far as "traditional" goes - would it be within the realms of accuracy to say that the RWS is 'the traditional illustrated-minors deck'? Thus far, I've been content to leave decks with plain pips pretty much entirely out of my Tarot experience; they do nothing for me. Thus the RWS is certainly by far the oldest deck I use - I should think probably the only one created outside my own lifetime.

I don't think it was literally the very first deck I ever bought (quite honestly I can't remember), but it was certainly one of the first - I picked it up about the time I started learning tarot 'seriously' (before that I had a Swiss 1JJ that I think a family member picked up at a car boot sale, and one very inadequate booklet of card meanings). Most likely I only got it because I'd read somewhere that it is THE deck to learn with. And I disliked it quite intensely, found the art ugly and faintly repellent.

In a way, I think the very unattractiveness of it helped to sear the images into my brain! - it's certainly become a sort of touchstone to me. If I struggle with a reading I've done using another deck, I'll go look up the RWS version of the cards, sometimes recreate the whole spread with that deck, to see if its imagery clarifies things for me.

Eventually I realised that a very large part of its 'ugliness' was its colouring. When I lost my first RWS, I replaced it more out of a sense of obligation than anything - almost resentfully, really, with the feeling it was a necessary learning tool rather than something I wanted to own or use. Only this time, I picked up the Radiant RWS. The lineart is identical, the colour choices very nearly so (the biggest difference being that the original has a lot of white skies and yellow grass, while the Radiant uses blue and green); but the cards are coloured more richly, with smooth shading, which to me marks a huge improvement over the grainy, garish, newsprint-esque originals. (And I don't feel as though I'm betraying the creators' original vision or any such thing, since from what I can tell the grainy, garish scheme was selected to make the cards accessible according to the limitations of printing presses 100+ years ago. In fact I like to think that the Radiant version is closer to what both Waite and Smith would have liked to see.) Suffice to say that with the better colouring, I no longer find it ugly or terribly difficult to connect with. :)

As for reading with it... I think probably my impressions of it, and how I use it - the circumstances where I select it over all my other decks for a reading - are clouded by many years of seeing it primarily as a 'tutorial deck'. I generally use it for one of two things: when I'm trying out a new spread for the first [few] time, and I'm not quite sure if the positions I've assigned will work for getting the information I want; or when I'm feeling tired/unfocused, not in the ideal frame of mind for a reading, but having to make the most of the time I have. For me, this deck has a very straightforward, clear-cut, almost clinical outlook. No doubt I view it over-simplistically, and I suspect how I feel about it and how I use it will continue to evolve over time, but that's the stage I'm at right now.
 

Emily

Eventually I realised that a very large part of its 'ugliness' was its colouring. When I lost my first RWS, I replaced it more out of a sense of obligation than anything - almost resentfully, really, with the feeling it was a necessary learning tool rather than something I wanted to own or use. Only this time, I picked up the Radiant RWS. The lineart is identical, the colour choices very nearly so (the biggest difference being that the original has a lot of white skies and yellow grass, while the Radiant uses blue and green); but the cards are coloured more richly, with smooth shading, which to me marks a huge improvement over the grainy, garish, newsprint-esque originals. (And I don't feel as though I'm betraying the creators' original vision or any such thing, since from what I can tell the grainy, garish scheme was selected to make the cards accessible according to the limitations of printing presses 100+ years ago. In fact I like to think that the Radiant version is closer to what both Waite and Smith would have liked to see.) Suffice to say that with the better colouring, I no longer find it ugly or terribly difficult to connect with. :)

I think that this too was my problem with the RWS, the first one I bought was the Original with the limited colours and the black outlinings that is so thick in places that it covers the artwork. My second RWS was a Spanish version of the standard and I hated the colouring used, not all the colours but the yellow that seems to be throughout the whole deck seems to really irritate me to the point of not liking the deck enough to use it. I also have the Radiant and the Universal which are lovely but they still didn't pull me enough.

The RWS is a deck that I really wanted to work with, so when the Centennial came out I thought I would give it a go and suddenly the beauty of the RWS has opened up to me, I love just about everything there is to love about the deck, the colouring is fantastic, no mean yellows and then LoScarabeo release their version, which is not quite as attractive as the Centennial, but comes as a very close second. These two decks are very similar in colouring and miles away from the standard RWS's. I wouldn't hesitate in recommending these decks to readers who found the standard RWS's weren't to their taste but wanted to learn on one.
 

Grizabella

This will be about my third post in this thread. Right now and for the foreseeable future, I've decided to use the RWS pocket edition---even though I just said a few posts back that I was going to use the Universal Waite. :p I wanted to use my RWS mini deck but then discovered that somehow I've lost SIX (!) of the cards out of that deck! Darn it! So the pocket size has to be the one, but I'm hoping those missing six cards will show up somewhere here.
 

novavita

My opinion

As a beginner, I think this deck is a good place to start since so many decks follow its tradition. But I get what you're saying, the art doesn't pull me in like other decks. I initially bought this deck on the recommendation of a lady at an occult store since I had no idea what to start with. Specifically, I bought the pocket-sized Universal Waite. But it has grown on me since I've used it. There are several cards that really appeal to me like The Star, Strength, or The World.
 

3ill.yazi

I feel like I'm repeating myself but I don't see me in this thread lol. My first deck was RWS and I've never had issues with the artwork. Clones that attempt to allegedly fix the RWS look derivative, wimpy, and inauthentic to me. Especially the Universal Waite. I tend to like clear bold lines and colors, and the alleged faults in Pixies drawings appeal to me as mysterious.

That said, I have no experience with Thoth, but I do like the TdM, and am having fun with an Etteilla deck, but those are still a little advanced for me imo
 

Richard

As a beginner, I think this deck is a good place to start since so many decks follow its tradition. But I get what you're saying, the art doesn't pull me in like other decks. I initially bought this deck on the recommendation of a lady at an occult store since I had no idea what to start with. Specifically, I bought the pocket-sized Universal Waite. But it has grown on me since I've used it. There are several cards that really appeal to me like The Star, Strength, or The World.
The Universal is a beautiful deck, but as 3ill.yazi wrote, it may seem a bit wimpy after using it awhile. If you ever feel that it's not communicating strongly enough, you might try the regular Rider-Waite (preferably the Smith-Waite Centennial) or even my favorite: the infamous, lurid, brash Albano-Waite }).
 

The Happy Squirrel

I couldn't connect with this one either. I explored the Universal (softer feel somehow not sure why or how) and the Albano (love the colours!!). Still can't feel them. Then I came across the 'International Icon' and the 'New Vision', both a spin of Smith's design. They are good substitute for a beginner like me who needs to refer back to the traditional RWS as a reference point (for now) :)

(one day I hope to use the Marseilles as my reference point)
 

Richard

Attachments

  • trainingwheels.jpg
    trainingwheels.jpg
    70.9 KB · Views: 147