pip terminology confusion

[Mallah]

Ok; I've read lots and lots of threads here this year about pip cards; they are becoming my preferred method of reading, (not to mention how pretty they are).

But there seems to be no agreed upon terminology...

Please define "non-illustrated" / "illustrated" and "non-scenic" / "scenic".

Or give examples? Unfortunately, the problem with listing examples is that the Forum itself, when showing card samples, so often fails to show a sample of minor pips (occasionally an ace....), favoring the majors and courts.

TdM...for example...certainly illustrated... but uniformly, across all the cards...so the little flowers and such do not specifically and graphically point out a meaning or mood...it's open to interpretation....the cards are "decorated" certainly.

Then there's the Thoth, at the other end of the spectrum, where cups drip with green slime...hard to give a positive spin to that card... certainly illustrated. But scenic? Not exactly scenery... in the sense the "truth seekers tarot" minors are...(pips in landscape...)..but I THINK (from what I get) that the Thoth might be an example of what the forum terms "scenic" pips. (As opposed to "scenic minors", which i assume means RWS, etc....)

I mean is THIS correct:

1. Unillustrated, non scenic (pips): seven swords. Thats it. (B.O.T.A. as an example. There's austere for you!)
2. Illustrated, non-scenic (pips): TdM (for example) Visconti (another example)...decorated.
3. Scenic (pips): "moody" backgrounds, other decorations/creatures that tip off the reader to some of the meanings of the cards... (Thoth, delle Vetrate)
4. Scenic minors (non pips) RWS et al. Human characters on all the minors (except of course the 8 of wands and Aces.)

basically, as I read the threads, the terms seem to be used loosely... is there a standard, and some just don't know it, or is it general pandemonium when it comes to describing these things?

 

[tarotbear]

It's kind of like the 'letter' designations on car models. I may be driving a Fettucini LE and you may be driving a Scungili LE, which we both may think of as 'Luxury Edition' but in fact the letters are meaningless designations created by each car company and not a 'standard' at all.

 

[rwcarter]

I mean is THIS correct:

1. Unillustrated, non scenic (pips): seven swords. Thats it. (B.O.T.A. as an example. There's austere for you!)
2. Illustrated, non-scenic (pips): TdM (for example) Visconti (another example)...decorated.
3. Scenic (pips): "moody" backgrounds, other decorations/creatures that tip off the reader to some of the meanings of the cards... (Thoth, delle Vetrate)
4. Scenic minors (non pips) RWS et al. Human characters on all the minors (except of course the 8 of wands and Aces.)

Like tarotbear said, there is no standardization, but for me:
1. Unillustrated is pips on the same background
2. Illustrated is pips on differing backgrounds or pips and accessories (there's a better word) like leaves, flowers, etc as in the TdM style decks
3. Scenic is a full scene (not necessarily having to include people)

I've not given thought to a category of scenic pips, lumping those in with Illustrated pips.

Rodney

 

[nisaba]

Please define "non-illustrated" / "illustrated" and "non-scenic" / "scenic".

A non-illustrated pip card just has the suit symbol on it, as many as the number. For instance, the Six Pentacles will have six coin-like things on it and nothing else, the Four Wands will have four sticks on it and nothing else.

An illustrated pip will have a picture on it, which usually includes those same suit-symbols (but not always.

A non-scenic pip is a non-illustrated pip. A scenic pip is an illustrated pip.

 

[Mallah]

Nisaba...so are RWS minors Illustrated Pips?

 

[Richard]

The word illustrated is too ambiguous to be useful. Even unadorned pips can be said to be illustrations. I just use the terms scenic and non-scenic. It's scenic if it is essentially a rcognizable scene of some sort, such as a landscape or skyscape or building interior. The RWS number cards are scenic. The TdM pips are non-scenic. If further elaboration is required, I'll just describe whatever it is in ordinary language. E.g., the TdM pips are non-scenic but have floral embellishments.

 

[kalliope]

I mean is THIS correct:

1. Unillustrated, non scenic (pips): seven swords. Thats it. (B.O.T.A. as an example. There's austere for you!)
2. Illustrated, non-scenic (pips): TdM (for example) Visconti (another example)...decorated.
3. Scenic (pips): "moody" backgrounds, other decorations/creatures that tip off the reader to some of the meanings of the cards... (Thoth, delle Vetrate)
4. Scenic minors (non pips) RWS et al. Human characters on all the minors (except of course the 8 of wands and Aces.)

Like tarotbear said, there is no standardization, but for me:
1. Unillustrated is pips on the same background
2. Illustrated is pips on differing backgrounds or pips and accessories (there's a better word) like leaves, flowers, etc as in the TdM style decks
3. Scenic is a full scene (not necessarily having to include people)

I've not given thought to a category of scenic pips, lumping those in with Illustrated pips.

I tend to agree with rwcarter:

1. Unillustrated pips (non-scenic) - plain suit symbols, no decoration
2. Illustrated pips or minors (non-scenic) - suit symbols with decoration (leaves, flowers, etc.)
3. Scenic minors - like the RWS, with scenes to suggest meaning, usually storybook-like scenes

Mallah, I tend to call your #3 "Moody Minors" (not sure where I first heard that phrase) -- essentially Illustrated Pips with evocative art to give a strong mood or meaning. Like the Thoth. I'd put the Tarocco dell Vetrate here, too, even though sometimes there are additional objects on the cards (but not full scenes).

As the others have said, there is no official terminology, but I'd say at least that almost everyone says "scenic" to mean "minors with scenes, like the RWS" and Pips/Illustrated Minors to mean anything with mostly suit symbols.

Edited to add "non-scenic" to my entries, since LRichard's post reminded me!

 

[Mallah]

To me, the term "pips" (pips being little seeds) are the suit emblems...and yes, there are "pips" in the RWS illustrations...but to me, those RWS's arent' what I've come to know as "pip cards". To me, "pips" are cards with the suit emblems. So RWS, in my mind are NOT pips. Then, among pips, there seem to be about 3 or four levels.

"Unillustrated pips"...meaning just the symbols....sort of what we see on an average poker deck.... three swords. (B.O.T.A) (It occurs to me, that since Builders want you to color your own deck, one could put one's own decorations on these...there's certainly room!)

"Illustrated pips"...would be pips PLUS decorations...but the decorations might be fairly uniform across all the cards in a suit or even across the suits...think TDM/Visconti. Perhaps "decorated pips" or "embellished" might be more correct term here..

"Scenic pips" ...have an evocative environment...and other "props" that bring forth a meaning. Thoth (for example) (Atmospheric pips? Environmental pips?)

"Scenic Minors" (note the absence of term "pips")...RWS and subsequent traditions with "people" and "situations" drawn out in full like a page from a story.

 

[Richard]

......"Illustrated pips"...would be pips PLUS decorations...but the decorations might be fairly uniform across all the cards in a suit or even across the suits...think TDM/Visconti. Perhaps "decorated pips" or "embellished" might be more correct term here.......

What I've noticed in these forums is that the term "illustrated" is used in quite different ways: some people use it to mean "embellished," others to mean "scenic." As a consequence of this, it is a term doomed to be misunderstood.

 

[Grizabella]

Nisaba...so are RWS minors Illustrated Pips?

Well, I'd call them scenic Minors or fully illustrated ones.

Illustrated pips would be pip cards with the viney things on them or maybe viney things and a small picture in the background.

Pips would just be, for instance, two swords or two coins or such without the vines and/or small picture.

I could be wrong. I've always used RWS myself, till I recently decided to try Thoth. Now, Thoth is a good example, though, of what I'd call illustrated pips.

ETA: That's my own answer. I wasn't trying to answer for nisaba.