Re-Release of Original Aquarian Tarot/Palladini

[Orlando]

Has anyone purchased the recently re-released Aquarian Tarot by artist David Palladini featuring Temperance on the box-cover? I am curious to know if the artwork reproductions are particularly vivid compared to earlier printings of the same deck. Thanks!

 

[MareSaturni]

i love this deck!

I own this newest version...but not the older one...so i can't compare. But the cards are really beautiful...the back is perhaps the worst - it's dark blue with some crazy white lines and swirls that definitely don't fit the deck. But nothing that would make the deck unusable.

The colors, it seems to me, are nice. Lots of warms colors...and they seem vivid...as vivid as the Aquarian tarot can get, since it is a 'muted' deck, with lots of white an all.

Annnnd...i'm very pleased with the lamination. USGames decks were getting a lamination that was shiny, sticky and smelly...but it doesn't happen with the Aquarian. Probably because it's printed in Belgium.

The cards size are about 12cm x 7.5cm. I had hoped they would be smaller...anyway, i'm tempted to trim the useless white borders it has.

I think this version is very pretty...nice card stock, nice colors, awful LWB (actually Little White Folded-Paper), but you probably ain't getting it for the LWB...

Let's see what someone who owns the older version has to say, shall we?

 

[Silverlotus]

I own this newest version...but not the older one...so i can't compare. But the cards are really beautiful...the back is perhaps the worst - it's dark blue with some crazy white lines and swirls that definitely doesn't fit the deck. But nothing that would make the deck unusable.

This back is on several version of the deck. Honestly, I don't know why it was picked, as I believe the very first version featured something different.

This was my first deck, crazy back and all. Can you image, part of the reason I picked the Aquarian was because I didn't like the plaid pattern on the RWS deck.

Anyway, the rest of your comments match pretty closely with the deck I bought over 15 years ago. Sounds like nothing much as changed. I can't really comment on the card stock though, since my deck long ago soften up.

 

[MareSaturni]

This back is on several version of the deck. Honestly, I don't know why it was picked, as I believe the very first version featured something different.

If i'm not mistaken, there is an earlier version, the one published in the 70s, that had a different back design. I think it was just plain blue, or something like that. No silly white swirls andlines and dots and whatever. I think i'd have prefered that one but nevermind, i still love the deck.

I wonder if anyone here still owns the first edition of the Aquarian Tarot.

 

[Lillie]

They come up on ebay a lot.

I had one and sold it.

They are common, not too expensive.
Nice though.

 

[rwcarter]

I have multiple versions of the Aquarian (it was used in a lot of games in the 70's) and have three different back designs - blue swirly (kinda reminds me of ocean waves), solid blue and white with a red shield on it. I posted a pic in a different thread. Let's see if I can find it....

http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=1189427&postcount=21

The third deck I referenced in that post ended up being the solid blue back.

HTH,
Rodney

 

[AJ]

Always the square peg, I like that blue and white back It makes me think of old Chinese fabrics in indigo. But it sure doesn't companion the deck well, which is true of many deck backs.

 

[the_surfacer]

Well, call me a square peg, then, because I like the blue and white backs, too. No, it's probably not a good match for the deck, but I'm so used to it now that it's hard for me to imagine anything else going on behind the cards.

 

[6 Haunted Days]

I've always loved those backs too! It's so pretty, swirly and hypnotizing.

 

[serenaserendipity]

this is one of the prettiest decks in my opinion... perhaps i should put it on my wishlist!

but does anyone besides me not like the booklet that comes with it (the original at least?)


s.