jmd
The Minchiate threads have proved rather interesting reading (and contributing for those who have!).
Simultaneously, however, I would also like to (albeit however slowly) continue the contrast threads. So here I resume our work.
What is originally striking about these two is the general similarity of depiction. Those Batons, irrespective of their possible derivation (and as is standardly repeated, as alterations from Mamluk polo-stick depictions) each have endings that are somewhat reminiscent of a blade of some kind.
If I had to describe it, actually, what would first come to mind is the halberd (though simpler than the version used by the Swiss Guard), and somewhat stylised.
For the sake of reference, below is a British halberd dating from the 1770-1780s:
Also of similarity between the Dodal and Conver is the floral depiction. Here, the leaves on the sides in each case 'twirl', and (as to be expected, but still worth mentioning) the plant faces away from the centre in both the upper and lower depiction.
If it was not for the distinctness between flower heads, it would make the card reversible in terms of depiction. So here is a detail that becomes important, and that each deck works with in a different fashion: it seems that either each flower-head is of a different species, or, perhaps mmore likely, they are depicted at a different stage of unfoldment, with one side in full bloom, and the other either already wilting or about to bloom (depending on how one sees the depiction).
Another striking similarity in these two specific decks (remembering that variants exist for each deck model, even when the same woodblocks were used) is that the central portion is coloured differently to the other parts of the background: that red centre seems out of place from a 'photographic' perspective of four batons, leaves and flower cuttings on a white (or offwhite) background.
Finally (for now), both decks number this card in the Roman additive style.
Simultaneously, however, I would also like to (albeit however slowly) continue the contrast threads. So here I resume our work.
Dodal ->
Conver ->
What is originally striking about these two is the general similarity of depiction. Those Batons, irrespective of their possible derivation (and as is standardly repeated, as alterations from Mamluk polo-stick depictions) each have endings that are somewhat reminiscent of a blade of some kind.
If I had to describe it, actually, what would first come to mind is the halberd (though simpler than the version used by the Swiss Guard), and somewhat stylised.
For the sake of reference, below is a British halberd dating from the 1770-1780s:
Also of similarity between the Dodal and Conver is the floral depiction. Here, the leaves on the sides in each case 'twirl', and (as to be expected, but still worth mentioning) the plant faces away from the centre in both the upper and lower depiction.
If it was not for the distinctness between flower heads, it would make the card reversible in terms of depiction. So here is a detail that becomes important, and that each deck works with in a different fashion: it seems that either each flower-head is of a different species, or, perhaps mmore likely, they are depicted at a different stage of unfoldment, with one side in full bloom, and the other either already wilting or about to bloom (depending on how one sees the depiction).
Another striking similarity in these two specific decks (remembering that variants exist for each deck model, even when the same woodblocks were used) is that the central portion is coloured differently to the other parts of the background: that red centre seems out of place from a 'photographic' perspective of four batons, leaves and flower cuttings on a white (or offwhite) background.
Finally (for now), both decks number this card in the Roman additive style.
