All new de-enabling thread

nisaba

<muttering> As intriguing as a gas-chamb- ... er, as intriguing as the Illuminated deck.
 

gregory

alpha_beta_angel said:
I crave another de-enabling...My husband's on night shift and I'm on the computer...I think it's your moral duty. LOL

Can you comment on either of these:
Touchstone, Fantastical Creatures and Bohemian Gothic.

Those three I keep umming and ahhing over and I'm interested in the cons of these decks as I'm rather besotted with them.
They are all - just decks. I have them all. So what ? That is NOT a recommendation. Have you SEEN my storage facility ?

Let's see. The Touchstone is just like Kat's Golden. Collage. Buy magazines and do your own.

BG. DARK. So dark that you have to have the book to see the detail - which is a right pain when you are reading with it - and that assumes you can actually find a copy. It is OOP and bloody expensive.

Fantastical Creatures. I forget why I wouldn't recommend this, which says a lot; I can usually remember why I object to decks. It really must be pretty bloody awful..... Hang on - crap card stock, I think, and very indifferent art.....
 

alpha_beta_angel

gregory said:
BG. DARK. So dark that you have to have the book to see the detail - which is a right pain when you are reading with it - and that assumes you can actually find a copy. It is OOP and bloody expensive.

It's seriously THAT bad...? I've been offered a bookless deck by someone but if it's that hard I might pass, or just keep it for "pretties" though I was looking forward to reading it. I'm edging towards being de-enabled on this one at least.

Any more negatives?
 

Vesper

BG - Even the Sun card is creepy. Unless you're a real fan of horror, this deck is way dark, literally and figuratively. The online scans have pretty good resolution and contrast, but the physical cards can be hard to make out. If your eyes are old, you might be pulling out the magnifying glass, and turning all the lights on. Which kind of defeats the purpose.

(that said, I wouldn't de-enable this deck if you found it for a good price. It will go up in value, even without the companion book. Then again, it might be reprinted in a couple of years, with improved clarity. Maybe you can wait for that?)

Touchstone. All portraits. How can you read with just portraits? It would be like an entire deck of court cards.

Fantastic Creatures. Distrust anything that has the word "fantastic" in it. If it was that fantastic, it wouldn't have to call itself fantastic, would it? It's probably crap, or you'd see lots of people raving about it here. It's probably known as Craptastic Creatures among the people who know their tarot.

Oh, wait Fantastic-AL Creatures... Well, still craptastic. Wait for the Lisa Hunt Fairy Tale deck. Same illlustrator, but borderless cards, and a more coherent theme. Who wants a cat with angel wings? Cheesy.

And the fact that you're looking at such divergent decks says that you're just window-shopping. Read a tarot book, or do a spread with a deck you haven't used in a while. Ask yourself why you bought that deck. Remember the hankerin' you felt at one time for this deck that you now never use... Rinse, lather, repeat, until de-enabled.
 

Jewel

alpha_beta_angel said:
Can you comment on either of these:
Touchstone, Fantastical Creatures and Bohemian Gothic.
I am not even going to try and de-enable you from the BG, though I would say that I find the book very useful. Not sure I would go with the deck only. Touchstone ... just succumbed to this one myself so I cannot help with that either.

Fantastical Creatures - now this one I can try and help you with. Not sure what your elemental association preferences are, but in this deck swords=fire, and wands=air. Don't know about you, but personally I prefer them the other way around. In addition, this deck is also has goddesses in it (Kahli for example), and I am just not quite sure why goddesses were included as "fantastical creatures", if I were a goddess I would be most offended to be lumped in with them. The deck seems more like an oracle deck than a tarot deck to me personally, so if it is a tarot deck you are wanting I would cross this baby off my list if I were you.
 

Chronata

Crap.
I am being totally seduced by that Pamela Coleman Smith Centennial thingie.

Gah. Help me peeps! I need some serious de-enabling besides the obvious..."how many RWS decks do I need?" (I am actually afraid to take mine out anymore because it has become a treasured antique)

and yes,I know it's just a way for US Games to keep their grubby paws on the franchise...but...
BESIDES all that...why shouldn't I just go ahead and grab one?

It looks so beautiful, and soft and aged. and pretty backs...

sigh.
You can see I need serious help here!
 

Alta

I hope they put out the deck only. I would like a second copy of the deck, but.... de-enabling here.... the kit is too expensive.
 

Aerin

The stupid blue bag is sooooo the wrong colour for the deck.

The backs are really dull.

There's a copyright thing on every card.

It's amazingly heavy.

The cards are dark and gringy and very spotty, well blotchy somehow.

There's no tuckbox.

I'm sure USG will put out a cheaper deck only version. No way are they going to pass up that chance.

Import the LS one from Alida as soon as it is available instead. You know it makes sense.

Aerin
 

nisaba

Chronata said:
and pretty backs...
Warning: Best and most serious attempte at de-enabling RWS decks following.

Pretty backs? Shame about the fronts.
 

Aerin

gregory said:
Fantastical Creatures. I forget why I wouldn't recommend this, which says a lot; I can usually remember why I object to decks. It really must be pretty bloody awful..... Hang on - crap card stock, I think, and very indifferent art.....

It's pretty but useless for reading with. I mean really. It's that DJ Conway again. New agey, waffly, who knows what on earth she's on about claptrap. Don't bother. Get a book from the library with pictures of creatures instead.

Or search the web. Lots of pretty pictures and just as useless for reading with.

It's not a tarot. It's eye candy.

Aerin