Originally Posted by Gavriela
It reads a lot easier if you go by the pictures and use the keywords on the cards as a starting point - have to agree with Mat, the LWB meanings sound like they're for a different deck entirely.
That's what I do. Even though it's from the beginning of his career, in 1825, Granville was already an amazing artist who knew how to convey expression with a few strokes. Can you imagine a better way of showing "frustration" than the one Granville chose? It's so eloquent!
I read it going entirely on imagery and keywords, and disregard both playing cards and LWB (the playing card correspondences are odd - I don't know if anyone has figured them out). In any case, the 19th century original would not have had an LWB.
I find this deck very down-to-earth, but I wouldn't use it for everything. It tends to go in the category of "anything I want a simple, easy, not very subtle answer for" - sometimes as an alternative to Lenormand or alongside it (Lenormand is far more subtle but equally down-to-earth). Mainly I read with it because I love Granville.