Pamelas A, B, C, D, E....and so forth

[Abrac]

roppo, that's pretty strong evidence.

 

[Le Fanu]

Yes, I 2nd that. Shakey signature, not a good sign...

 

[Teheuti]

Thanks for the comparison of the signatures; it's an excellent and convincing example. It seems strange to me that there is such a controversy when the evidence is so clear. The biggest clarification in the last couple of years has been over the Rose-and-Lilies versus Crackle-back Pam-A (including the slight trimming of the original image and the discovery of the April 1910 date for a printing on better paper).

BTW, anyone who wants to understand more about offset lithography - there's an excellent article in the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

 

[coredil]

I mean the "which is earlier" question between Pam-A and Pam-B can be settled by examining their degree of difference from the original drawing. And PCS monograms are the best measure for the purpose because we know what shape they have to take exactly. For the illustration :

http://grimoire.blog.ocn.ne.jp/doll/files/pcssignatures.jpg

The PCS monogram in the OR is the starting point: well defined letters, no breaking of lines.
PKT and Pam-A both have same line-breaking, but their direction of lines are not far from OR one. Pam-C PCS monogram shows considerable derogation: P is deformed, S is not done by one stroke. These features suggest a presence of copyist and the absence of Pixie.

roppo, it seems that the link to the signatures comparison picture does not work anymore.
Could you update it please?

Best regards

 

[gregory]

roppo, it seems that the link to the signatures comparison picture does not work anymore.
Could you update it please?

Best regards

Works for me.....

 

[coredil]

It seems strange to me that there is such a controversy when the evidence is so clear. The biggest clarification in the last couple of years has been over the Rose-and-Lilies versus Crackle-back Pam-A (including the slight trimming of the original image and the discovery of the April 1910 date for a printing on better paper).

Just out of curiosity, have you read the whole essay from Pietro Alligo?
It is quite interesting and he mentions several other reasons beside the cracked stone for his theory.

How would you explain that the Rose and Lilie deck has the Shit linie, the Pam B does not have it and then the Pam C has it again?

Also how would you explain that the line drawings and card titles of the PKT (which are the same as those of the A deck) stayed the same from the beginning until today but the line drawings of the B and C differs completely?

Best regards

 

[Teheuti]

Just out of curiosity, have you read the whole essay from Pietro Alligo?
It is quite interesting and he mentions several other reasons beside the cracked stone for his theory.

How would you explain that the Rose and Lilie deck has the Shit linie, the Pam B does not have it and then the Pam C has it again?

Also how would you explain that the line drawings and card titles of the PKT (which are the same as those of the A deck) stayed the same from the beginning until today but the line drawings of the B and C differs completely?

Best regards

All good questions for which I don't have definitive answers. Alligo is very convincing except for the "oops-line". A stone wouldn't crack as he describes. From a symbolist pov it is obvious that an additional ray is necessary to the symbolism of the card.

And why does the Pam-C not have "Love" under the signature - whereas it's there in the early B&W reproductions? Seems like a silly thing to leave out. The saving of the reject stock until years later doesn't make much sense either. However, none of that counts, since what's sensible is not necessarily what is.

I don't have time right now to re-look at everything and my memory is too poor to go into detail.

 

[gregory]

I wish I could find Ric's post about the line.... It was very convincing.

 

[Debra]

OnePotato posted his actual experience with broken lithographic stones in one of the world's best universities for artists and printers. Saying that the stone "might have" cracked in that peculiar way seems to go against all evidence about the stones themselves and how the printing process works. No point in perpetuating a myth. <shrug>

 

[roppo]

roppo, it seems that the link to the signatures comparison picture does not work anymore.
Could you update it please?

Best regards

I don't know what's wrong but somehow some members can't see the pictures I put in my bolg area. For your reference --

I think Mr Alligo did not have The Occult Review 1909 Dec. issue when he wrote the article in The Lo Scarabeo Story. The picture he shows as "the Occult Review Sun" in the article is not the OR Sun but PKT Sun with a modification on the Roman Numeral (XVIII for XIX). If he saw the OR drawings in the original issue, his conclusion would have been different. You can see the big picutre of OR RWS drawings at my website, but they are stored in the blog area. And they are too big to attach here. Anyway for those who might be interested --

300dpi scanned "The Fool"
http://grimoire.blog.ocn.ne.jp/doll/files/RWS1909or00.jpg

You can see this is not a blowup from the stone-plate, but a 1:1 ratio direct-print from the original drawing. Waite himself said "taken direct from the drawings".