Illustrated Pips VS Non-Illustrated

[bryghtrose]

Pip-only decks really turn me off. Seeing only numbers, or a collection of wands (or whatever) makes it really difficult for me to understand a card's meaning. I've never been one for rote memorization, which is why I've never been good at runes or astrology...though I think astrology is also because I'm not good a mathematics. Anyway, I need context for just about everything, and the images on the minors give me that context.

 

[Jewel]

Though most of the decks I use for reading have fully illustrated minors, I must say that I am very drawn to what I call "moody-minors". Those are pips that are not fully illustrated like the RWS, but are not pips like the Marseille. Decks with "Moody-Minors" have limited imagery with the pips and colors that set a mood or tone, for example the Thoth, or the Cosmic Tribe (I would also put the Crystal in this category and the Celtic by DeBurgh)

 

[Deacon76]

I loves me my Marseilles!

My first deack was an RWS, so there will always be a soft spot in my heart for it. And there are several other decks that I like because of the quality of the artwork. But once I picked of the Universal Tarot of Marseilles by Bursten/Burdel, man! I was hooked. It definitely takes work, but the readings I've had with it have been very deep, and it is a deck that seems to read well both for my own study and also when I read for other people. I find it to be awesome when reading intuitively. Just staring at the interplay of vines and flowers and swords, wands, etc. helps my mind drift into that special place where a reading starts to make sense.

I never thought I'd be able to work with an "unillustrated" pip deck. But picking that one up definitely changed my mind.

 

[6 Haunted Days]

So all you Marseilles lovers....what deck do you personally recommend and why? I've been wanting to get one for some time. Frankly the vast array of types, styles and all the historical names and dates has me very confused! I don't know where to begin.

Let me add I don't like bright colours, and I do love those flowery pips, vines etc......

 

[Splungeman]

I guess to me it would depend on just how unillustraed they were. I mean to be really technical, they are ALL "illustrated". It's just a matter of how much illustration go into them. I've heard some people in a shop refer to the Thoth decks pips as unillustrated. HUH?! Those are VERY illustrated. Sure, they don't have people on them but there are definite visual emotions, themes, etc being expressed.

Now if you've just got the same exact wand standing up vertically and each card that follows just adds another one of that same wand without any other variation, yeah...I wouldn't really like that too much. It's boring. But then, people read cards differently, and some may find highly artistically "busy" pips distracting or taking away from the importance of the trumps.

 

[jmd]

Agreed - in that I have yet to see a deck (except a blank deck) that lacks illustrations - just that on the Marseille-type they are illustrated principally with the implements (or stylised implements) with, in many instances, some floral or other arabesque - but no scenes are depicted (hence why I personally call the Waite-Smith and the like scenically depicted).

Personally, I find the rich imagery of the Marseille (and similar) allows for quite rich reflections without the particular visual interpretation provided onto the pip by a scenic image.

...as to which Marseille I would particularly recommend? Given that the Noblet is now readily available as a full deck - the Noblet!

 

[Moonbow]

Pips open up the imagination.

I really like them the best out of the whole Marseilles deck because in a reading I am unlimited in what I can say about them. Not restricted by an artists interpretation of what the cards should mean, but completely free to read it as I see it. That, to me, is the difference between reading Tarot and remembering Tarot. Of course the same can be done with illustrated pip decks, which I also love. But with a pip deck you have nothing to fall back on but yourself and how you see the cards at that time, (which could also be completely different the next time you spread out the same cards).

 

[le pendu]

So, instead of coming up with our own meanings for the cards, we're supposed use Waite's as a foundation? No thanks. I'd prefer the same route that he, and thousands of others have over the past 500+ years, and create my own.

I find great joy in being able to use decks like the Jean Noblet or Jacques Vieville, which are over 350 years old. I love feeling the connection to history and the roots of tarot. Imagine holding in our hands the same type of deck that inspired great tarot writers such as Papus, Levi, and yup.. Waite.

Why go through the intermediary?

--
Edited to add:
Are there exceptions? Yes. I love the Cosmic Tribe (fairly Thoth-based), and the Tarot of Prague (fairly Waite-based), and a few others; but really prefer the pip decks overall.

 

[spoonbender]

I agree with Splungeman and Jmd. I don't like the term 'unillustrated' because the Tarot de Marseille pips obviously ARE illustrated. Case in point: the 2 of Cups. I personally love non-scenic pips like those of the Tarot de Marseille - they are open enough to interpretation, but at the same time there's plenty to work with (primarily because of the vignettes and foliage). I wouldn't really like to read with decks that merely have a repetition of the suit-sign, such as playing card decks.

And never in my life would I use the RWS divinatory meanings for them - every deck has its own voice, and it'd be silly not to try to listen to it. Mentally pasting the RWS images onto the Tarot de Marseille pip cards would be blasphemous IMO.

I like scenic numeral cards as well though.

So all you Marseilles lovers....what deck do you personally recommend and why?

There was a thread about this only a little while ago.

If you search the Tarot Decks section, you're bound to find many others as well.

Spoon

 

[kwaw]

And never in my life would I use the RWS divinatory meanings for them - every deck has its own voice, and it'd be silly not to try to listen to it. Mentally pasting the RWS images onto the Tarot de Marseille pip cards would be blasphemous IMO.

In as much as RWS illustrate a collection of traditional DM's that were applied in many cases to the Italian suits by for example Etteilla (from traditional DMs he had originally collected for french suited ordinary playing cards), I don't see particularly why; 'blasphemous' seems to me rather strong, disproportionate and indeed at odds with the historical relationships between them.

Why should a traditional dm of an italian suited card become null and void because Smith chose to illustrate such in the RWS?

Kwaw