gregory
Not sure how likely it is that there will be anything there that you don't already have, but good luck!!
Yeah I KNOW - but - well, maybe...
Sheridan-Douglas deck?
Yeah I KNOW - but - well, maybe...
stellar4
Its always fun going deck hunting in Glastonbury, you never know what is going to turn up, as Avallonian has just proved with her wonderful Sheridan Douglas (surprised Courtyard missed THAT!!).
If all else fails there's the best lunch in town to be had at Rainbow's End and a chance for some interesting people watching...... Have a great time there Gregory.
But now I have severe SD envy and I want to find a bargain one too, just like Avallonian!
If all else fails there's the best lunch in town to be had at Rainbow's End and a chance for some interesting people watching...... Have a great time there Gregory.
But now I have severe SD envy and I want to find a bargain one too, just like Avallonian!
nisaba
<bursts into tears> Glastonbury is a long way away.
Forester70
I wonder if anybody who has the first edition AND the new printing can give me an idea about the differences. Mine is the 1972 edition and although I've always loved it I'm intrigued to see what changes or improvements have been made before deciding if I should duplicate.
Just to add that I am new to this board, but not new to the Tarot by any means (started about 1976) and in all those years I've realised that I'm extremely fussy about decks - which explains why I have just a handful and use just 3 of them at the most. It's to the credit of Alfred Douglas and David Sheridan that I can honestly rate this deck as one of the top 5 of all time. I don't know what happened in that burst of creativity at the turn of the decade, but it was definitely something special. Unlike nearly every popular deck I've seen there isn't a single card I dislike and for me, just one bad card will put me off. There are some that are not as striking as others of course, but nothing so annoying that I can't even use it any more; I'm looking at RWS in particular as one of the worst well known decks for this, but that belongs to another thread!
As others have said, I love the simplicity, the fluidity and dynamism of the images. It never tries to bludgeon you with latched on symbolism or an affected manner. Your imagination and subconscious is allowed to work and fill in the details and action in the cards. Some decks are incredibly busy, but at the same time seem static. Not this.
I enjoyed reading the contributions from Alfred Douglas in another thread and would love to know more about the actual process of coming up with the designs. I'd love to hear of how this deck has affected any of you.
Just to add that I am new to this board, but not new to the Tarot by any means (started about 1976) and in all those years I've realised that I'm extremely fussy about decks - which explains why I have just a handful and use just 3 of them at the most. It's to the credit of Alfred Douglas and David Sheridan that I can honestly rate this deck as one of the top 5 of all time. I don't know what happened in that burst of creativity at the turn of the decade, but it was definitely something special. Unlike nearly every popular deck I've seen there isn't a single card I dislike and for me, just one bad card will put me off. There are some that are not as striking as others of course, but nothing so annoying that I can't even use it any more; I'm looking at RWS in particular as one of the worst well known decks for this, but that belongs to another thread!
As others have said, I love the simplicity, the fluidity and dynamism of the images. It never tries to bludgeon you with latched on symbolism or an affected manner. Your imagination and subconscious is allowed to work and fill in the details and action in the cards. Some decks are incredibly busy, but at the same time seem static. Not this.
I enjoyed reading the contributions from Alfred Douglas in another thread and would love to know more about the actual process of coming up with the designs. I'd love to hear of how this deck has affected any of you.
gregory
A quick one - the differences are absolutely minimal. (I have both, as well as the bootleg Polish one !) More another time.
nisaba
I'm willing to bet that changes to the cardstock aren't minimal. I haven't had the good fortune to handle the earlier printing, but these ones are as stiff as window-panes, and glazed to within an inch of their lives. You could use them to chop vegetables.
gregory
JUST like the first edition, I assure you. When I said minimal changes, I meant exactly that.
JD here had an original print that her daughter used to chew when she was teething, and it came out unscathed. I've never chopped veg with them, but if I ever do, I'll get back to you on that.
Forester70
Thank you for the speedy replies.
I'm surprised they've kept the thicker card stock. The 1972 deck is about 40mm and shuffling is a little interesting shall we say; manageable though. So it looks like it might be hard to justify splashing out for the reprint then?
If people have time, I would like to hear more opinions and thoughts in this deck. It deserves to be much more popular, but somehow I doubt it will because superficially, as with the TdM it may not look as appealing as many other decks; people don't know what they're missing.
I'm surprised they've kept the thicker card stock. The 1972 deck is about 40mm and shuffling is a little interesting shall we say; manageable though. So it looks like it might be hard to justify splashing out for the reprint then?
If people have time, I would like to hear more opinions and thoughts in this deck. It deserves to be much more popular, but somehow I doubt it will because superficially, as with the TdM it may not look as appealing as many other decks; people don't know what they're missing.
avalonian
I had the reprint first, and recently was lucky enough to pick up the 1972 version. I don't know if it is because it is well used, but the 1972 one shuffles like a dream. The font is also slightly different and some of the colours vary slightly.
I think that if I had already owned the 1972 version I may have been slightly disappointed with the reprint.
I think that if I had already owned the 1972 version I may have been slightly disappointed with the reprint.
Forester70
Well after much consideration I couldn’t resist updating my deck to the newer 2006 printing - especially knowing that it may not be reprinted again for a very long time! I love this deck; it was my second ever tarot deck and I read Alfred Douglas’s book so many times in my teens and since that I can quote parts verbatim. Not only that, but in all those years, it still holds up as one of the best out there. Usually - and I think a lot of us do this - we love our new decks and want to tell everybody that this is the one and the best we’ve owned, etc, but after a while things start to niggle, or we have to admit to ourselves that we can’t connect with it as we’d like, or readings are vague. Not so with the Sheridan-Douglas; it just gets better and better with familiarity.
Enough of why I love the deck, what about the reprint? I was surprised, despite checking online, that the differences compared to the original were substantial enough to justify an update. With my ex designer and artist's eye it's interesting to see where the improvements and corrections were needed. So here’s the main differences, although almost every card has some small changes:
•The card stock is a little thinner and more flexible, but not by much; still a chunky deck
•Some marks and odd spots have been removed
•The newer deck is very slightly less glossy, but also smoother (top layer of older deck has a tendency to bubble a little)
•The backs have a nice pattern now and is therefore consistent in the shading
•The border is whiter - not totally white though. The older one was more creamy but over time I think the acid in the paper and age has yellowed it more.
•The borders have a lighter line, but the cropping is a bit tighter on most cards on the left side (western edge) and some of the original is cut into. Not in a way that spoils it, but there is a little bit missing in the new print!
•No bleeding of colours in the new deck - which gives a sharper and bolder definition - especially with the whiter background. I’m not sure if that was due to the older printing having some problems with register or due to the technique that David Sheridan used of cutting out colours and in places not getting it precise enough. More below.
•Some patterns and objects have been filled in that were missing before e.g. the snow capped volcano in Temperance and the lilies in the same card. Now I think they should’ve always been filled in, but there are also examples where I think mistakes were made in the past e.g. The falling drops of fire in The Tower had some blank drops. They are complete now. There are many examples of this and I don’t know if they just crept in through lack of thorough checking on the first print or what.
•Lines in the new deck are slightly less smooth. It almost looks like a printer definition or anti-aliasing issue, but it doesn’t detract and is probably only noticeable to those that notice these things for a living!
•"Flesh tones" or rather faces are a much more natural, lighter shade now, throughout
•The typeface is smaller and more consistent
•Eyes are a bit more defined and have separate "whites" - if possible - now
•Stars and garlands have been completely redone and defined
•Some colours have been changed for the better e.g. Sun in The Fool, Curtain behind Justice
•Folds in clothing and ripples in water are finer and more delicate and generally improved.
•Symbols and numbers for the pips are neater
•The new Empress is just lovely! They did a great job on card 2.
All in all there are enough changes to justify a new deck, but if you just had the old one you can rest assured you have a deck that is still a wonder. I do feel that although my old Sheridan Douglas is super thick and shiny, it does shuffle remarkably well, but that may be because it’s well used. There is a lot to love in my old deck, some of it may just be the comforting familiarity, some because of the mellowing due to age, but there are a couple of cards that I prefer in the older deck - despite their slight flaws.
David
Enough of why I love the deck, what about the reprint? I was surprised, despite checking online, that the differences compared to the original were substantial enough to justify an update. With my ex designer and artist's eye it's interesting to see where the improvements and corrections were needed. So here’s the main differences, although almost every card has some small changes:
•The card stock is a little thinner and more flexible, but not by much; still a chunky deck
•Some marks and odd spots have been removed
•The newer deck is very slightly less glossy, but also smoother (top layer of older deck has a tendency to bubble a little)
•The backs have a nice pattern now and is therefore consistent in the shading
•The border is whiter - not totally white though. The older one was more creamy but over time I think the acid in the paper and age has yellowed it more.
•The borders have a lighter line, but the cropping is a bit tighter on most cards on the left side (western edge) and some of the original is cut into. Not in a way that spoils it, but there is a little bit missing in the new print!
•No bleeding of colours in the new deck - which gives a sharper and bolder definition - especially with the whiter background. I’m not sure if that was due to the older printing having some problems with register or due to the technique that David Sheridan used of cutting out colours and in places not getting it precise enough. More below.
•Some patterns and objects have been filled in that were missing before e.g. the snow capped volcano in Temperance and the lilies in the same card. Now I think they should’ve always been filled in, but there are also examples where I think mistakes were made in the past e.g. The falling drops of fire in The Tower had some blank drops. They are complete now. There are many examples of this and I don’t know if they just crept in through lack of thorough checking on the first print or what.
•Lines in the new deck are slightly less smooth. It almost looks like a printer definition or anti-aliasing issue, but it doesn’t detract and is probably only noticeable to those that notice these things for a living!
•"Flesh tones" or rather faces are a much more natural, lighter shade now, throughout
•The typeface is smaller and more consistent
•Eyes are a bit more defined and have separate "whites" - if possible - now
•Stars and garlands have been completely redone and defined
•Some colours have been changed for the better e.g. Sun in The Fool, Curtain behind Justice
•Folds in clothing and ripples in water are finer and more delicate and generally improved.
•Symbols and numbers for the pips are neater
•The new Empress is just lovely! They did a great job on card 2.
All in all there are enough changes to justify a new deck, but if you just had the old one you can rest assured you have a deck that is still a wonder. I do feel that although my old Sheridan Douglas is super thick and shiny, it does shuffle remarkably well, but that may be because it’s well used. There is a lot to love in my old deck, some of it may just be the comforting familiarity, some because of the mellowing due to age, but there are a couple of cards that I prefer in the older deck - despite their slight flaws.
David
