| Author | Post |
|---|
goldenweb
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jan 11th, 2008 01:10 pm |
|
Does anyone know the name of the deck this card belongs to? It's a Dover image, and to quote from the book, which is probably a quote from the original book, it's part of a set of:
French tarot cards executed in the seventeenth century by an unknown Parisian card manufacturer.
I was hoping to print off a deck from the book simply to do a time-test of materials (I have a horror of glue unsticking/discolouring), but I'm very disappointed that only a few examples from each of the different packs is given, and hoping to find the others from this deck elsewhere, as the few cards illustrated are rather interesting .
Attachment: Dover069small.jpg (Downloaded 230 times)
|
gregory
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 1835 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 11th, 2008 01:37 pm |
|
It's the Tarot de Paris - a repro of a deck in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris..... Published in facsimile by Grimaud. I THINK it is oop. I'll get back to you on that.
ed. Yes, it is indeed............ :(
It's lovely  she says unhelpfully.
Last edited on Fri Jan 11th, 2008 01:49 pm by gregory
|
goldenweb
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jan 11th, 2008 02:00 pm |
|
| Thanks gregory, I'll have a scout around - love the checkerboard edges and the quirky little details...
|
debra
Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 837 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 11th, 2008 06:12 pm |
|
Where did you get the image, Goldenweb? I've got a copy of this deck--according to the box, "Edite par PROFUTUR et fabrique par CARBONNEL, so not the Heron edition--and the images are less "clean" and there is a tax stamp at the bottom.
Last edited on Fri Jan 11th, 2008 06:14 pm by debra
|
gregory
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 1835 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 11th, 2008 07:00 pm |
|
Mine says copyright Andre Dimanche, 1984, Societe le jeu de Marseille..... It's a limited edition.
It too has a tax stamp.
Goldenweb said it was from a Dover book.....
|
mythos
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jan 11th, 2008 10:55 pm |
|
Grrrrrr! at myself again. I had an opportunity to buy this deck at normal deck price, but not realising it was OOP, I didn't (thinking of unpaid bills:(), with the intention of buying it the next fortnight. Of course it was gone. Kicks self in the ankle.:P
mythos:)
|
tantricknite
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jan 12th, 2008 04:19 am |
|
mythos wrote:
Grrrrrr! at myself again. I had an opportunity to buy this deck at normal deck price, but not realising it was OOP, I didn't (thinking of unpaid bills:(), with the intention of buying it the next fortnight. Of course it was gone. Kicks self in the ankle.:P
mythos
I Love this deck.It's too cool.I did manage to pick one up on E-bay for cheap but doing that required waiting over a year for one to appear that wasn't priced over 100.00 dollars.My advise Mythos is be patient; eventually one will show up that you can afford......
|
goldenweb
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jan 12th, 2008 07:49 am |
|
gregory wrote:
Goldenweb said it was from a Dover book.....
Yes, from the CD Rom that came with it. The colours are nicely subtle, the resolution excellent. I printed two out on special cream art postcards, and have made some backs in Photoshop and printed them on cheaper self-adhesive postcards (fairly thin). I'm hoping this will be the answer to getting a decent overall thickness without warping, using wet glue or lamination. I'll leave the finished cards until I'm ready to make some new ones with my own tarot designs and see how they've fared. I think I'll have to track down and/or wait for a copy of this deck to come up though. It speaks to me...
Attachment: Dover072Small.jpg (Downloaded 210 times) Last edited on Sat Jan 12th, 2008 07:50 am by goldenweb
|
goldenweb
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jan 12th, 2008 07:51 am |
|
| And the backs I made... Attachment: TarotBacks.small.jpg (Downloaded 210 times)
|
goldenweb
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jan 12th, 2008 08:01 am |
|
More images here:
http://www.themysticeye.com/pics/deparis.htm
http://pasteboardmasquerade.com/Reviews/paris.html
Last edited on Sat Jan 12th, 2008 08:09 am by goldenweb
|
gregory
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 1835 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 12th, 2008 08:33 am |
|
My backs aren't AT ALL like that. I'll scan one later !
|
goldenweb
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jan 12th, 2008 08:39 am |
|
Apparently the original cards had the edges of the backs folded over to the fronts. These would work like that.
The limited edition backs are here:
http://www.faroutthings.com/xcart/product.php?productid=279
|
debra
Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 837 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 12th, 2008 08:46 am |
|
Yes, that's the back on the deck I have, too.
|
goldenweb
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jan 12th, 2008 09:55 am |
|
| I think the difference between the quality of the Dover images is due to the old and supposedly rare book they came from. The artist must have redrawn and recoloured the cards from the original cards in the museum (or somewhere else, if there are any), hence no woodcut feel to the line, no colour overlap or musem stamp etc. It might be an interesting project to carry on where s/he left off and redraw and recolour the trumps and make an updated set of the tarot of Paris. All I need is more Time...
|
debra
Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 837 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 12th, 2008 10:13 am |
|
I sent you a message, goldenweb.:)
|
goldenweb
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jan 12th, 2008 10:24 am |
|
| Thanks debra - I've just replied! I only saw it when I went to log out - not used to getting PMs here :)
|
gregory
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 1835 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 12th, 2008 05:39 pm |
|
Yes - that's like mine too - and you can buy it for a mere $150, apparently.
|
Bertrand
Member
| Joined: | Sun Nov 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | Paris, France |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 02:05 pm |
|
goldenweb wrote: Apparently the original cards had the edges of the backs folded over to the fronts. These would work like that. In fact, if I remember correctly from T. Depaulis text, the backs weren't actually folded on this tarot, but the checkered pattern was mimicking italian cards folded-front back, in a kind of trompe-l'œil, while the back were actually regular non-folded back (tarotés) using the same pattern found on both the Viéville and the Noblet.
sorry for bumping this old thread, just thought these 2 cents might be useful to someone.
Bertrand
|
Quarkling
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 04:34 pm |
|
My copy has the limited edition backs, but was produced by Grimaud. Also there is no date anywhere on any of the cards, or the box. It seems to be another edition,
|
goldenweb
Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 06:11 pm |
|
Bertrand wrote: goldenweb wrote: Apparently the original cards had the edges of the backs folded over to the fronts. These would work like that. In fact, if I remember correctly from T. Depaulis text, the backs weren't actually folded on this tarot, but the checkered pattern was mimicking italian cards folded-front back, in a kind of trompe-l'œil, while the back were actually regular non-folded back (tarotés) using the same pattern found on both the Viéville and the Noblet.
sorry for bumping this old thread, just thought these 2 cents might be useful to someone.
Bertrand
Bertrand, that's really odd, as I was thinking about exactly that (the backs of the original cards) only today. Thanks - very useful info.
Pen
|
goldenweb
Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 06:17 pm |
|
Quarkling wrote: My copy has the limited edition backs, but was produced by Grimaud. Also there is no date anywhere on any of the cards, or the box. It seems to be another edition,
The faroutthings link above has this info: Published by Grimaud for Andre Dimanche, 1984
Does it look the same as your edition, Quarkling?
Pen
|
Bertrand
Member
| Joined: | Sun Nov 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | Paris, France |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 07:28 pm |
|
goldenweb wrote
Bertrand, that's really odd, as I was thinking about exactly that (the backs of the original cards) only today. Thanks - very useful info.
there's definitely no such things as coincidences...
On the one I've got, the © is 1984 on the booklet and 1985 on the card that mentions "édition limitée" (there are two cards added to the 78 cards, one for the text describing the cards, the other for the © and limited edition)
On this card and on the booklet the © mentions André Dimanche, the box says "Édité par André Dimanche et fabriqué par le Maître cartier Grimaud", which translates to "Published by André Dimanche and made by the Master cardmaker Grimaud".
|
Bertrand
Member
| Joined: | Sun Nov 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | Paris, France |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 07:33 pm |
|
and by the way I'm glad my post helped ! Thanks for letting me know
Bertrand
|
Quarkling
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 08:43 pm |
|
goldenweb wrote:
Does it look the same as your edition, Quarkling?
Pen
It does noot have the title card on faroutthings. Otherwise, it's the same.
|
Sumada
Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 04:51 am |
|
I know this isn't the trading section but...
I just happen to have a spare copy of this deck that I'd like to sell, if anyone is interested. 
|
undul8r
Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 03:37 am |
|
| It's incredible.
|
Bertrand
Member
| Joined: | Sun Nov 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | Paris, France |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 8th, 2010 08:59 am |
|
Hello,
I'm bumping this thread since I can compare side by side the Profutur and the Dimanche editions. There are several differences in these two versions:
*Size : The "profutur" is slightly bigger (about 1.5 mm in height) and the pictures themselves are bigger (nearly 1mm more in height).
*Coating : the "profutur" edition is heavily coated, nearly sticky, and very (too) shiny. The "Dimanche" edition is softer, matte, and slides way better.
*Cardstock : quite similar at first sight, but the "Dimanche" feels better, the "profutur" tends to bend a little bit.
*Image quality: "Profutur" edition is quite grainy but doesn't lacks any details, although colored surfaces look a bit dusty, while the "Dimanche" version has very neat aplats. On both version one can discern the brush strokes on the colors, but the grain on the profutur version makes them more obvious. This difference in quality may in part be due to the bigger printing size.
*backs: though both decks use the same pattern, the profutur version has a weird pinkish back printed in blue with a low definition, which looks frankly quite terrible, the Dimanche version has a white/yellowish back printed in grey - maybe a bit too light but much more elegant.
*Booklet: The Dimanche booklet has the Thierry Depaulis text, and the date of printing, the profutur booklet only has the "cartomancy" description and no date of printing.
*Box : Dimanche uses the world, profutur uses the Sun, the composition is very similar - text is different on the Profutur and the fonts are not really elegant, the Dimanche has a golden frame printed around the text, not the profutur - , although the texts over gray background on the Dimanche are replaced by big rectangles on the Profutur. The profutur/carbonnel version definitely looks like a reprint of the Dimanche/Grimaud version in a slightly reduced quality.
Best regards,
Bertrand
ETA details about the box
Last edited on Mon Mar 8th, 2010 09:05 am by Bertrand
|
hoo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 29th, 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 20 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 8th, 2010 11:51 pm |
|
gregory wrote:
My backs aren't AT ALL like that. I'll scan one later !
The backs are interesting. The one posted by 'goldenweb' above, and in his other post, the one shown in the link to the 'limited edition' at faroutthings.com, are both "one-way decks". You can tell from the pattern on the backs of each one, wether a card is reversed or not.
The first one has concentric rectangles filled with a checkerboard pattern. If you look in the corners of each rectangle, the little squares are all the same color. But in the center rectangle, there are light colored squares in the upper and lower left corners, and dark squares in the upper and lower right corners.
The limited edition has half-hexagons with dark 'ticks' in their center along one short side, but only triangles which are empty along the other short side. This is so flagrant that it is possible that the creator simply didn't know or care about the symmetry. But the checkerboard design seems deliberate and stealthy and looks like a lot of bona fide 'marked decks'.
Gregory, It would be fun to see your backs, if they're different from the above 2.
|
goldenweb
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 9th, 2010 05:40 am |
|
Hoo, my post seems aeons ago now, when I hadn't been collecting very long and knew little about tarot history. When I found the Paris Magician in the Dover book I made the back in Photoshop with some idea of printing a trial set - I'd certainly be more purist now and use original ones - anything else would seem like sacrilege!
Pen
|
gregory
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 1835 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 9th, 2010 07:20 am |
|
hoo wrote: gregory wrote:
My backs aren't AT ALL like that. I'll scan one later !
The backs are interesting. The one posted by 'goldenweb' above, and in his other post, the one shown in the link to the 'limited edition' at faroutthings.com, are both "one-way decks". You can tell from the pattern on the backs of each one, wether a card is reversed or not.
The first one has concentric rectangles filled with a checkerboard pattern. If you look in the corners of each rectangle, the little squares are all the same color. But in the center rectangle, there are light colored squares in the upper and lower left corners, and dark squares in the upper and lower right corners.
The limited edition has half-hexagons with dark 'ticks' in their center along one short side, but only triangles which are empty along the other short side. This is so flagrant that it is possible that the creator simply didn't know or care about the symmetry. But the checkerboard design seems deliberate and stealthy and looks like a lot of bona fide 'marked decks'.
Gregory, It would be fun to see your backs, if they're different from the above 2.
Mine are like the ones Pen linked to:
http://www.faroutthings.com/xcart/product.php?productid=279
I have to say it is pretty hard to see which way up they are !
|
Bertrand
Member
| Joined: | Sun Nov 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | Paris, France |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 9th, 2010 09:11 am |
|
Hello,
hoo wroteThe backs are interesting. The one posted by 'goldenweb' above, and in his other post, the one shown in the link to the 'limited edition' at faroutthings.com, are both "one-way decks". You can tell from the pattern on the backs of each one, wether a card is reversed or not. Truth is you can't, as Gregory wrote, because in fact the original pattern is not consistently printed from one card to another - which is a good thing IMO. Hence the details you point out can't betray a card orientation.
The Dimanche deck has a consistent color for the backs, the Profutur version was printed without such concern and the back colors shows great variation both in the background colour and the printed pattern (not to mention the weird colour I wrote about earlier)
Bertrand
|
gregory
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 1835 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 9th, 2010 09:21 am |
|
Thanks Bertrand - I thought I might be losing my touch
|
hoo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 29th, 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 20 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 9th, 2010 11:23 pm |
|
Oh - well, I guess it hardly makes any difference anyhow. There are alot of card decks of all kinds out there that don't even bother at symmetrical backs. Any deck with artwork on the back ( like a person or a dog) is automatically 'one-way'.
I'm sensitive to this because I caught one of my best friends cheating the rest of us at a weekly poker game with a marked deck once. I had read about it in a stage magic book. Since then I've also read quit a few card trick books and know what to look for and a bit of the theory of how to put it to use.
It's mostly only important in 'games of chance'. Gambling with a marked deck is a serious no-no.
|
Quarkling
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 10th, 2010 01:28 am |
|
hoo wrote: Any deck with artwork on the back ( like a person or a dog) is automatically 'one-way'.
It's not automatic! There are backs, with artwork, which have symmetry.
|
Bertrand
Member
| Joined: | Sun Nov 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | Paris, France |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 10th, 2010 07:49 pm |
|
I think I get your point hoo, from this perspective, you're right, and even someone who wishes to impress could learn each card's back (at least the triumphs) and "guess" with a reasonable success rate what card is under. Not obvious to those among us who don't play card too often. I should definitely spend less time reading books about cards and more time actually using them - including as a game...
Shame on me for forgetting the playing/gambling origin of the Tarot and thanks to you for pointing it !
best regards,
Bertrand
|
Current time is 01:27 pm | |
|
