gregory
Not a lot - but that doesn't stop things possibly looking like the symbol. But good point, Ric - and thanks for the pix, coredil. Must go and look at some of my other dodgier printings - I bet they ALL have it....mac22 said:
RWS 3 of Wands weird thing
coredil
Curiously the Pam A deck provided by Holly Voley on sacred-texts.com shows the same detail but the B&W picture taken from Waites book does not.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/tarot/xr/wa03.htm
It would be nice to hear wether other Pam A decks has this too!
I do not have any early copy of Waites book, but on later copy one can find the same printing error.
Best regards
http://www.sacred-texts.com/tarot/xr/wa03.htm
It would be nice to hear wether other Pam A decks has this too!
I do not have any early copy of Waites book, but on later copy one can find the same printing error.
Best regards
gregory
Anyone else have contact with Frank Jensen, as I REALLY don't have time just now.... I'll ask in a day or two....
ETA I can't bear it....I have e-mailed him.... as far as I know he has every edition. I will also see if truelighth is around....
ETA I can't bear it....I have e-mailed him.... as far as I know he has every edition. I will also see if truelighth is around....
starlightexp
My Pam A has it as well, I thought I had a scan of it with me today but I don't so I'll post up one tonight. It very much looks like a printing error.
truelighth
Ok, I am tuning in.. thanks to Gregory. I hadn't noticed this quirky thingie before either. I went to check on all my scans of the Pam A (Roses&Lilies and crackled back),B,C and D. And indeed, it shows on the all the Pam A versions and the D. Since the D is like a bad photographic copy of the Pam A, that is logical. It doesn't show on the B and the C.
But that doesn't really surprise me, since the art on the B and C is less detailed then on the A anyway. There are many differences. The faces on the B and C are also different and there are even little voids that in my opinion shouldn't be there on some cards (example: the Empress, between the Empress' arm and the forest, there is suddenly a space) and also her crown has less stars in the B/C then on the A).
It is also true that the actual art we see on the cards is from the copyist to copied the original art to the plates. And it is very clear that the copyist from a Pam-A is someone different then from the Pam B/C. Now, as to why, there are two theories:
- the one from Frank Jensen that he describes in his book: the B/C plates were made later by an inferior copyist, probably because the deck was more successfull then they thought and they needed new plates and were cutting costs.
-or the one by Pietro Allegro, stating that the B/C plates were made first, those prints were printed first and the plates started showing cracks and all. Later the Pam-A plates and prints were made. Possibly to actually correct a lot of details that Waite was not happy about in the first prints.
I actually believe more that the Pam-A plates were made first, but that is my personal opinion. In any case, the Pam-C also doesn't show this quirky thingie on the 3 of wands. So it isn't a crack or something that appeared on the plates and was later on copied by subsequent copyist.
I also looked at that picture of the B&W image in the book and the Pam-A that coredil posted, from the sacred-texts on Holly Voley's page, but I see the quirky thingie in both. So they come from the same origin/plates. Which to me actually again says that the B/C plates were made later by a different copyist. But who knows...
I have to say, it does look like a mistake of a smudge, maybe the copyist made a mistake. If you see it in close up on the original Pam-A, it looks even more like a mistake or smudge.
I could send a pic of the close up from the Pam-A, but I can't post attachments. Anyone volunteer to put it up for me?
And yes, I am very sure it will be in the commemorative set, since that is a copy of the Pam-A.
But that doesn't really surprise me, since the art on the B and C is less detailed then on the A anyway. There are many differences. The faces on the B and C are also different and there are even little voids that in my opinion shouldn't be there on some cards (example: the Empress, between the Empress' arm and the forest, there is suddenly a space) and also her crown has less stars in the B/C then on the A).
It is also true that the actual art we see on the cards is from the copyist to copied the original art to the plates. And it is very clear that the copyist from a Pam-A is someone different then from the Pam B/C. Now, as to why, there are two theories:
- the one from Frank Jensen that he describes in his book: the B/C plates were made later by an inferior copyist, probably because the deck was more successfull then they thought and they needed new plates and were cutting costs.
-or the one by Pietro Allegro, stating that the B/C plates were made first, those prints were printed first and the plates started showing cracks and all. Later the Pam-A plates and prints were made. Possibly to actually correct a lot of details that Waite was not happy about in the first prints.
I actually believe more that the Pam-A plates were made first, but that is my personal opinion. In any case, the Pam-C also doesn't show this quirky thingie on the 3 of wands. So it isn't a crack or something that appeared on the plates and was later on copied by subsequent copyist.
I also looked at that picture of the B&W image in the book and the Pam-A that coredil posted, from the sacred-texts on Holly Voley's page, but I see the quirky thingie in both. So they come from the same origin/plates. Which to me actually again says that the B/C plates were made later by a different copyist. But who knows...
I have to say, it does look like a mistake of a smudge, maybe the copyist made a mistake. If you see it in close up on the original Pam-A, it looks even more like a mistake or smudge.
I could send a pic of the close up from the Pam-A, but I can't post attachments. Anyone volunteer to put it up for me?
And yes, I am very sure it will be in the commemorative set, since that is a copy of the Pam-A.
truelighth
Hmm. I just thought of something. The quirky thingie is on the Pam-A with the Roses&Lilies and on the crackled back one. The art on those two versions is definately the same, but the dimensions of the images on the cards is different (the Roses and Lilies are not centered, some images almost 'bleed' off the card) and also the quality of ink and colouring is different (more deep with the Roses&Lilies compared to the crackled back).
So if they made all these corrections anyway, to make the images fit better on the cards with the crackled back version, then why not correct this little thingie? Makes me wonder.. maybe it is intentional after all??? Or maybe it was too much work to correct this, since the other corrections were mainly around the borders of the cards.
So if they made all these corrections anyway, to make the images fit better on the cards with the crackled back version, then why not correct this little thingie? Makes me wonder.. maybe it is intentional after all??? Or maybe it was too much work to correct this, since the other corrections were mainly around the borders of the cards.
blue_fusion
I never realized this would be a serious matter for you collectors...
gregory
Frank Jensen responded:
My apologies for remembering him wrong !
My apologies for remembering him wrong !
truelighth
blue_fusion said:
LOL! Well, it isn't immediately a serious matter for us collectors. But if you are obsessed with the RWS (like me
), then things like these are interesting!Seafra
blue_fusion said:
You can't know how many times I've looked at this deck and never noticed those dang lines. And I started staring at these images when my eyes were much younger.
Following this thread with great interest. Thanks folks.
