It's more a question of the art
I've never taken to the Sharman Burke deck's art or storylines, but some people like that full story development.
If you are speaking of the Brian Williams deck, I like the book for background on tarocchi/tarot commentary and art themes, but do not use the cards in the deck.
The Olympus in limited format of one to three cards in a spread is a creative one for me if I feel like reflecting on the classical theme and think of how a story/allegorical tales applies to me. The descriptions are brief, briefer than the Folchi deck.
In terms of the Folchi deck, of the art style doesn't entice you, then I don't think you'd enjoy spending the money for the deck. The commentary from the booklet for the majors is very good for a tarot done in the 1970s or 1980s, but they are short two or three paragraphs.
The minors sustain interest for me because I find the art colorful, different and learn from the scenic elements. The booklet, to me, has interesting analytical twists in the brief description.
A very small paragraph of maybe two or four lines describes the scene, a divinatory meaning follows in the minors. But I don't know of anyone who uses it besides myself and just because I find it interesting--well, it's
probably a question if the art seems worth it to you.
If I were you, I would hold off a few weeks. Later, after reading the review again from Mark Filpas website, then I believe you will know if it's worth it to you. Some people take to more delicate illustration or different art styles. If it doesn't appeal really now, wait a week or two...Mark Filpas' description of the contents of the booklet is very accurate, he just doesn't say how brief the descriptions are for the minors.
"The little booklet was written by Andrea Gamboni, whose commentary on these mythological archetypes make the deck even more interesting. His text has the stylings of psychoanalytical language woven throughout it. "