I felt that way about the Gilded. CGI stuff looks *way* better on a computer screen than in person, IMO.faunabay said:Yep, good job on de-enabling yourself. I can't remember who but someone quite a while ago was all hot and heavy about that particular lenormand too. But once she had it, she said it wasn't nearly as nice in person. So there you go!
So I don't need to point out that it seems as if the playing card images are holding circular signs with the card's number (useful, admittedly) and the artist's initials bugeyed: distracting, unnecessary, ego-driven, ugly! WTF?!) in their hands?sravana said:Successfully de-enabled!
Oh, so *that's what the "IK" is? I(c)K, indeed!Cat* said:So I don't need to point out that it seems as if the playing card images are holding circular signs with the card's number (useful, admittedly) and the artist's initials bugeyed: distracting, unnecessary, ego-driven, ugly! WTF?!) in their hands?
I don't feel that the art in the IK Lenormand (lol) is bad. Did you ever look at the Empress and Emperor in David's? they are capering monkeys! I just had a good look at my David's last night (I was thinking of selling it), and it is an uneven deck, IMO. Mostly brilliant, mind you - but even it definitely has its moments.Cat* said:And I don't need to mention that this deck has nothing in common with the David's Tarot? That the difference between the two is like the one between minimalist Japanese(?) calligraphy/painting (= David's) and sketches that should have been redone to hopefully get actual good paintings instead of having been printed and sold (= Isabel's). Plus, the latter looks as if has been treated (composed?) with way too many "art" filters in Photoshop - never a good thing.