firefrost
Why are the suits of Deniers and Couppes hit and miss regarding the Roman Numeral side numberings?
Noblet Pip Numberings
Bernice
Hi FireFrost,
Can you say what Noblet deck you have? I'm on the brink of getting the Flornoy one (am tomorrow) and haven't seen scans of the pip cards.
Is there anything else odd about the cup & coin suits? (I mean, in relation to the rest of the deck cards)
Bee
Can you say what Noblet deck you have? I'm on the brink of getting the Flornoy one (am tomorrow) and haven't seen scans of the pip cards.
Is there anything else odd about the cup & coin suits? (I mean, in relation to the rest of the deck cards)
Bee
ihcoyc
I just got mine today. Haven't had the chance to study it in depth, but I noticed this immediately too.
My immediate and shallow impression is that Noblet omitted them when he didn't have room.
My immediate and shallow impression is that Noblet omitted them when he didn't have room.
Abrac
I haven't seen the original pips on which Flornoy based his restorations, but he was so faithful to the originals with regard to the Atouts that I can't help thinking this must be a feature of the Noblet originals. Some of the work back then tended to be on the sloppy side. Several of the cards clearly have room for numbers but they just aren't there.
Bernice
Abrac, thank you for that info. I'm not that much of pureist.... wish he'd added the numerals in. Just heard that my Noblet is in the post
so I'll be able to see for myself.Bee
firefrost
Bernice said:Hi FireFrost,
Can you say what Noblet deck you have? I'm on the brink of getting the Flornoy one (am tomorrow) and haven't seen scans of the pip cards.
Is there anything else odd about the cup & coin suits? (I mean, in relation to the rest of the deck cards)
Bee
Hi Bee - it's the Flornoy I have. I've not noticed anything else odd in the cards - but then again, my eye is yet untrained!
ihcoyc said:
Abrac said:
At first I thought that it might be a 'room' problem but after looking properly, there is plenty of room on the cards for the numberings. They are not totally symmetrical.
Personally, I think it spoils the deck a little - Abrac mentions some sloppiness in early years and I think if this how it's been reproduced, it makes the deck look a little like it was finished in a hurry and the numberings missed out because of it.
Apologies to all Noblet fans and Jean-Claude because I know that the above is not the case and this is how it's supposed to be!
It does give it a 'Uniqueness'!
Rosanne
If you fan out the pips in your hand, you will see, as the players would in dark and candle lit rooms- that cards that can be recognised from the 1/2 inch showing, are not numbered.
Take the X Batons- place a fan shape over it and you will see that you cannot see the two upright Batons- it might be an eight without the number. So all the Batons and Swords are numbered. The Cups that might be mistaken are numbered, but I think the 9 should have been; although the sideways cup of the X makes the difference. The 2,3,4, Cups are self evident. The coins are odd, because although the florals are self evident if you are used to the cards- it takes a while to know you have the 8 Coins, not the 9 Coins in your hand etc etc. One number is reversed- 8 of Batons? generally I can see why some have numbers and some not.
~Rosanne
Take the X Batons- place a fan shape over it and you will see that you cannot see the two upright Batons- it might be an eight without the number. So all the Batons and Swords are numbered. The Cups that might be mistaken are numbered, but I think the 9 should have been; although the sideways cup of the X makes the difference. The 2,3,4, Cups are self evident. The coins are odd, because although the florals are self evident if you are used to the cards- it takes a while to know you have the 8 Coins, not the 9 Coins in your hand etc etc. One number is reversed- 8 of Batons? generally I can see why some have numbers and some not.
~Rosanne
Bernice
Rosanne, brilliant observation - as per usual.
Thank you for pointing that out. And here I was thinking to myself, "when that deck arrives I might just find a way to draw the numerals in...". O.K. O.K. that's sacriledge - promise I won't!
Bee
Thank you for pointing that out. And here I was thinking to myself, "when that deck arrives I might just find a way to draw the numerals in...". O.K. O.K. that's sacriledge - promise I won't!
Bee
Rosanne
No sacrilege Bernice I have rounded the corners with a clipper. It depends on your view- I heard no scream of pain from my cards as I clipped them.
(Don't tell jmd though)
Hang on, I think he put some I Ching symbols on one deck with a marker!!!!
The knowledge is in your head not in the cards.
Bloody ugly deck is the Noblet, but very useful.
Now the Visconti- thats another matter altogether.
~Rosanne
I have rounded the corners with a clipper. It depends on your view- I heard no scream of pain from my cards as I clipped them.(Don't tell jmd though)
Hang on, I think he put some I Ching symbols on one deck with a marker!!!!
The knowledge is in your head not in the cards.
Bloody ugly deck is the Noblet, but very useful.
Now the Visconti- thats another matter altogether.
~Rosanne
Bernice
Rosanne, you cheer me up no end!
Bee
Indeed it is. Looks beautiful, and I was very tempted. but ended up with the Ancient Minchiate Etruria - because it's weird, different. No doubt a hodge-podge of things, but it intrigues me! The Visconti is on my list.
Bee
