Questions about MAAT...

[seaweed]

Well, I love the deck imagery on the MAAT (not as keen on the back of the deck, though) and was wondering whether the artist has considered making a slightly smaller, pocket-sized deck. I asked and received an email saying that she has received many requests for one, but is still pondering it. It just seems a whole lot handier to have smaller to fit in a purse and carry around. So for anyone who has or likes the MAAT, 3 quick questions:

Has anyone else here wished the MAAT were more in a 2" x 4" size for ease of use?

For anyone having the deck, how is the book? (I've read that it's over 400 pgs and looks archivally perfect. Do you like it? Do you find it awareness-expanding/very useful?)

(Now for the silly question...) The deck is *so* rich, beautiful, visceral, multicultural and ranges over many traditions and hundreds of centuries...What do you guys think about the fairly plain card backs? (I'm enamored of the card faces, but I would've loved to have seen the same kind of richness follow through to the card backs...but that's just my 2 cents )

It's an intriguing deck and I'd love to hear from the people who use it and the people who've thought about buying it (like myself : ) if only it were a little smaller...)

Thanks for reading (thanks even more for responding!)

 

[Mimers]

Well, I love the deck imagery on the MAAT (not as keen on the back of the deck, though) and was wondering whether the artist has considered making a slightly smaller, pocket-sized deck. I asked and received an email saying that she has received many requests for one, but is still pondering it. It just seems a whole lot handier to have smaller to fit in a purse and carry around. So for anyone who has or likes the MAAT, 3 quick questions:

Has anyone else here wished the MAAT were more in a 2" x 4" size for ease of use?

2x4 is a little to small, but smaller, yes, that would be nice to have a choice. I do love big cards for the detail they allow, but it does make doing large readings awkward.

For anyone having the deck, how is the book? (I've read that it's over 400 pgs and looks archivally perfect. Do you like it? Do you find it awareness-expanding/very useful?)

The book IMO is essential. It adds so much to the value of interpretation. It reads well, it explains the cards in detail and opens up new doors when reading with the cards.

(Now for the silly question...) The deck is *so* rich, beautiful, visceral, multicultural and ranges over many traditions and hundreds of centuries...What do you guys think about the fairly plain card backs? (I'm enamored of the card faces, but I would've loved to have seen the same kind of richness follow through to the card backs...but that's just my 2 cents )

I agree on the back. I don't like the papryss look. I would have chosen something more generic since it is not really an Egyptian themed deck, but actually multicultural. To me this is a minor detail that I really don't care about all that much.

I am so happy I got this deck. I hesitated in the beginning because I did not know much about the phases of the moon and the system it is based on. The book took care of that for me by explaining her system very well.

The beautiful cards are also easy for me to read intuitively because of the rich symbolism. If you decide to purchase, I strongly recommend the deck and book.

Mimi

 

[Bat Chicken]

I posted in another thread recently about this deck - but I agree with Mimi on all counts. This is one of my favorite decks and I know very little about astrology....

 

[SolSionnach]

.....

 

[SolSionnach]

.....

 

[seaweed]

Ooooh! It just sounds like a sweeter and prettier deck with each comment...and I'm so-o-o-o tempted! The face-side images are so evocative and instead of being a bit parroting like other decks might be, the meanings listed on Julie's website have full of all those "ah-ah!" and "I'd never really thought of it that way, but it makes *sense*" moments...it just opens things up for a much larger picture Once in a blue moon a deck comes along and opens up entire other dimensions.

I can hardly wait until there's a slightly smaller version (with rheumatoid arthritis it's too hard to handle big cards, although that is where all the delicious details are.) Truely, I'd be very, very tempted to buy 2 decks if/when she goes smaller--one to use and baby and a second to frame and admire between readings (and have as a backup)---LOL.

I'm with you, it will be interesting to see how the Empress and the Hierophant are consorts, sravana. I wouldn't have associated them with each other, either, aside being close numerically. Now you have me interested I'll have to read some more.

Out of curiosity, what other decks do you guys like as well as this one? (Don't worry, I'm not thinking about getting one of the other decks *instead* of MAAT--I'm pretty smitten, just trying to be patient in the meantime --but it's nice to see what other decks detail-oriented, other intuitive readers are drawn to.)

Thanks for answering, Mimers, Batchicken and Sravana!
Looking forward to hearing more from you

 

[Bat Chicken]

I love good intuitive decks. I find that the added dimension in the images keeps things interesting - So, the more subtleties as opposed (or together with in some cases) to outright symbols intrigues me on a deck which is why I really like:

Ancestral Path (CW's other deck)
Victorian Romantic
Druidcraft
Mary-el (Majors only)
Fantastic Menagerie

The Mary-el is rich in symbolism - but it is subtle and the symbols are not simply 'placed'. The image flows, tells a story... so even though is is still only majors, it is highly effective. Does that answer your question?

 

[huredriel]

Has anyone else here wished the MAAT were more in a 2" x 4" size for ease of use? - Nope, I love the larger size cards, even if it is a wee bit awkward shuffling.

For anyone having the deck, how is the book? I've not yet read through mine in full *hangs head* ...... but from what I've seen so far, it's pretty indepth, and I just love the way it's presented.

What do you guys think about the fairly plain card backs? Love them ....... I don't mind plain backs, but then do you read the backs?

As for other decks, I now have both of Julie's other decks, the Blue Moon which I loved from the moment I got it .... and the Ancestral which I've not yet worked with. I also love the richness of the Tarot of Dreams, the Druidcraft, my Old Path (which is a lot plainer but very blunt) ...... and for artwork & depth, Haindl! Many more but these are the ones that come to the top of my head. Ooohh and the MerryDay at present is presenting a great deal of depth & intrigue for me

 

[Kissa]

i have always loved Julie's artwork. after reading what she wrote on the study group about her deck being deeply pagan and deeply feminine, i decided to go for it. i wanted to buy the unsigned deck only version and try and keep up with the study group here. now it looks like i'm getting the set in a trade (he he, weaver).

conclusion: i love the universe, i love tarot, i love funny coincidences and above all, i love and thank weaver

but really, was it all a coincidence or was it somehow MEANT to be...? i stopped wondering with tarot (and tarot buddies)...

k

 

[Nina*]

I've just ordered a signed and numbered (#354) copy of this deck, and I just wondered; can someone please tell me the size of these cards, in cm?