Deck advice

[sweetsunray]

I'm considering getting a new deck in a couple of months...

I've had several in the past 9 years, two which I use regularly.

My first deck was the Celtic Tarot deck: http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/celtic/

I picked it up for the drawings which I loved, but the pip cards, and in many ways the images of the Majors did not speak to me as thoroughly on an intuitive level.

I had the Monte Farber & Amy Zerner deck that accomponied the book, but never used it. It looked awesome, until I had it in my hands.

At first the Rider Waite seemed harsh to me in comparison to the Celtic Tarot deck, for its apparent imagery and its bright colours. I learned to appreciate its straightforwardness though, and I read with it primarily for years. And it helped me to gain major experience, because the cards themselves tell a little story. It compared to me with being able to translate Tarot spreads as if I was translating meditation and dream symbolism. But honestly, I never took for the colours and drawing style.

So, I compensated that by getting the Haindl deck, where the cards are works of painting art. However, I found that it was too depressing in tone.

Finally, after a while, I had the courage to buy the Crowley Toth deck, which my best friend used (he bought a RW though because of mine). And I used to do double readings with it. That is I would do a primary spread with the RW for the direct message, and then afterwards put the Crowley cards over it, for impressions. The Toth deck was painted under direction of Aleister Crowley on huge canvases. If anything, not just the imagery, but the colours of the cards can simply start to resonate in me. It's like they evoke energies or intuitive insights and moods within me, like no other deck can. It is my favourite deck, especially for self-readings. Because of the abstract, but still imagery and colour telling pips it's an advanced deck imo.

Aside from the Rider Waite and Crowley Toth deck, I have no other decks in my possession anymore. I gave the others away to friends who wanted a deck.

But I think I'm ready for a companion to my Toth. I cannot and will not use the RW for myself anymore.

And there are two decks that I've noticed online that seem to speak to me:
1) the Medicine Woman deck
2) the circle of life deck

Especially the latter one peaks my interest. Does anyone of you have experience with either?

I'd be obliged if you can give me some feedback on them.

[pirbid]

Hello, Sweet!

Since I have none of the Tarots you mentioned -save for the omnipresent RW-, I have been browsing through them in Aeclectic.

Of those you mention, I love the Haindl best: amazing artwork, but I agree it is quite darkish and some details are hard to make out.
The Crowley has very vibrant colors and that makes each card easier to identify. I like it, although the drawing style is a bit too dynamic for my taste.
From the 2 decks you are in doubt about, I like the colors of the Medicine Woman, although they and the drawing style are more basic, like RW. What I find confusing is the change in the names of most cards: it would take me a long time to navigate that! Still, it reminds me a little of the Celtic you had at first, probably through the colors.
So, if I had to make your choice, I would definitely go for the Circle of Life: the colors are deep and varied, each card has standard names in 6 languages, the pips are illustrated -I love the idea of the Aces being unborn children- and the drawing style reminds me of links to different primitive cultures. But, best of all, it is the only Tarot I have seen so far that has round cards -I do wonder how easy they are to shuffle, though-, which probably gives a whole new dimension to 'right' and 'reversed' meanings.

I agree there is nothing like the RW to begin with: it is the simple basic colors and illustrated pips that make it so easy to understand at first sight. It is like a story book for children.
Of course, we all like to go on to read more advanced literature, so I also have bought many decks -and given many away- just for the pleasure of the artwork. Still, unless the colors are fairly contrasting, I find it takes me longer to identify each card and bring its meanings to mind, so I prefer using them for myself, when I have all the time in the world -that is, hardly ever-.
In case you or anyone else might be thinking about buying a new deck, I will make a brief comment on each of mine -the ones I still keep, that is-.

- The Medieval Scapini is the only more 'classical' Tarot I still have, and only because the pips are illustrated. It looks classic and classy, even a little luxurious, with the Majors and court card backdrops painted in gold and silver, like the very old Visconti-Sforza. But the intricacy of the drawings makes it hard to read, so I only keep it for its artistic value.
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/medieval-scapini/
- The Universal Fantasy is another example of amazing and intricate artwork, but the meanings are completely lost to me.
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/universal-fantasy/
In general, I find Italian cards are absolutely beautiful -like the Lo Sacarabeo decks someone mentioned not long ago-, but hard to interpret. However, Lo Scarabeo has hundreds of decks published, including versions of the RW, and the Circle of Life is one of them, so some are easier to read than others.
- The Ancestral Path is quite popular -several people here have mentioned having it-, with nice original artwork but no so far removed from RW to make it incomprehensible. The style might be a little too realistic for you, though, Sweetsunray. Maybe for me, too. I used it regularly for a while but have since moved on.
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/ancestral-path/
- The Spiral first fascinated me for its colors, but after a while it's a little like the Haindl, too uniform to easily tell one card from the next.
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/spiral/
- The Robin Wood is a very popular RW clone, only with a more comic like style and coloring, very straightforward and a pleasure to read with.
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/robin-wood/
- The Llewellyn I find a visual treat for its watercolor style and dreamy quality. Even though the Majors are based on Welsh myths and legends and are given its names rather than the classic ones, the pips are based on the RW, so it is easy to read if you are coming from it, like me. The only trouble is that the colors have little contrast in comparison with more vibrant decks.
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/llewellyn/
- Ciro Marchetti's Guilded Tarot was my last purchase, also based on the RW. The digital renditions of the cards and the richness and depth of the colors are just breathtaking.
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/gilded/index.shtml

These last three are the ones I use on readings for myself, while keeping both the regular and the mini RW for readings for others. The mini is specially useful to scan and post readings on the forums.

And my next is the last Marchetti's, Legacy of the Divine, which I hope to get in a month, more or less around my birthday. Also digitally rendered, I find it even more beautiful than the last.
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/legacy-divine/

Hope to have been of service

[sweetsunray]

The most difficult thing in the creation of a deck is making cards that are AND accessible, AND deeply layered AND not copying RW AND beautiful AND each card must stand on its own

When I look for a new deck I look for
- originality: does it stand on its own, or could I just use the RW instead.
- accessibility: is it a total mystery what the card means and do I need to memorize meanings instead, or can I derive info by looking at the card
- layering of meaning: does the imagery allow for deeper understanding and meaning I may not have seen at first acquaintance
- openness: can a heavy card show hope, and can a feel-good card show the possible sting
- individuality: is every card unique
- groupings: can cards over different suits and functioin be grouped just by their imagery, while clearly contrasting other cards as a group
- court cards: the hardest cards to read are court cards, any reader will admit to that. And most decks utterly fail on this one. They put a person on it, but well, it doesn't say much at all.
- reversability: I don't really care either way, but when they are reversable it must still stay readable. I've read some explanation about the Circle of Life deck that you need to read the angle of the round cards like a volume knob... soft to loud and clear. I like that idea very much.
- art: if I have to look at them then I want to see something that I like to look at, and this counts for every card in the deck.
-

The Celtic Tarot: my first
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/celtic/
Beautiful, and colourful. I love it when the cards show me a path in the spread. The RW and Crowley are able to do that. This one as well. Unfortunately the pips are barely llustrated, the court cards incredibly hard to read, and some of th Majors were puzzling... like the Magician.

Zerner-Faber deck:
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/zerner-farber/
which I never used, because the art work was just plain disappointing to me once I held it in my hands

Haindl deck:
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/haindl/
I loved the Haindl for a while for example... it was a new exploration, until it simply started to feel restrictive, and I just couldn't shake the feeling that the deck was depressive. So, stunningly beautiful and layered, but uniform in water colour, and imo too depressive or restrictive for meditation

The Goddess deck: (I forgot about that one)
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/goddess/
I could not use it. It simply was not accessible. Had to memorize every card. And while beautiful pictures, eventually it just became too fluffy - too much feel good.


The ones I use:

Crowley Toth:
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/al ... ley-thoth/
absolutely love it. I simply cannot complain abotu this deck. While he did alter the names of the court cards (Pages are Princesses, Knights are Princes, Queens stay Queens, and Kings are the Knights) I think this is the sole deck I know of that has made them so accessible in imagery. Their charachter is so readable, the positive and the negative, even more so than RW's court cards.


Ones I don't have but know of

Round motherpeace deck
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/motherpeace/
Around for decades. I learned of it originally from Mary Greer's workbook. But I simply don't like the art of it.

medicine woman deck
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/medicine-woman/
It speaks to me, I've gone through every card and it seems workable, except for the court cards. Maybe not the most beautiful art out there, but it's got its own identity nonetheless. It has a positive empowering feel, but I fear though I might come to consider it a bit too fluffy after a while.

Circle of Life deck:
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/circle-of-life/
I've been looking and looking yesterday for more images, and I do think it has the potential to cover the things I look for. Most images are things I've hardly ever seen before, and it will certainly need to time to acquaint myself with them, most of all some of the pips I think. I truly like the "volume" idea (instead of "reversed"). Not so sure the imagery and background colouring allows for a pathway to be noticed visually from a spread, but maybe the "volume" will do that. The court cards show potential as well.

From the decks you shared Pirbid, I like the "legacy of the divine" the most. I especially like the pips. The portray images would be getting used to: like the High Priestess and Hermit, but the attributes are there and the other element information gives a hint as well... such as the lonely valley of the Hermit. The court cards I'm not sure of. I like the King of Cups a lot, but then the page of swords is less readable to me. Whereas the Queen of wands only after a while connects the dots for me: she looks fiery, sexually charged, and haughty. I think it may just take a while to get used to the portray angle. But I may consider it over time.

Yeah, thanks for your opinion  :smt003

I've attached an image of all Crowley Toth's court cards, from princess to prince to queen and knight. While his system does not follow the RW, and you cannot totally turn the Toth knight into a King, the court cards do speak for themselves. You just dare to let go of RWs court cards.

[pirbid]

I totally agree with the difficulty to read court cards and that may be the reason I am set on the Legacy from the first time I set eyes on it. Since the portraits are so lifelike, you just have to look into their eyes and let them speak to you. The Queen of Wands looks strong, independent, no nonsense, although haughtier than the RW, who looks more accessible and open. Still, I have seen all 78 cards in this site and Ciro only uses the close portrait approach for Pages and Queens, while the Kings are more distant and hard to read, and the Knights aren't readable at all: only their helmets are there!
http://www.legacyofthedivinetarot.com/h ... index.html
But they are so beautiful...

I had no idea about the 'volume' approach to round cards. You must let me know if it is easy to work with -if you finally chose the Circle of Life, that is-.

It really is hard to find decks that comply with all your requirements, though very desirable. RW clones are not very original, but so easy to read that I tend to fall back on them a lot.
The layering is very interesting: some decks are very flat in meaning and I believe it is because their creators aren't all necessarily familiar with the basic symbols for each card, without which they lose a lot of their meaning.
Also the openness, which can be used as a substitute for reversals or in conjunction with it. What I found more interesting in the points you raised is that of the cards offering a path you can follow through a reading. Colors are definite helps or hinderers.
When I saw the Toth court cards you posted I understood the deck a bit more, so thank you for showing them  :)

[Cascade of Light]

While his system does not follow the RW

 Judging from their written works, Mr Waite and Mr Crowley did not share beliefs or agree on the methodolgy, or history of the Tarot. Mr Crowley favoured the Ancient Egyptian background thus calling his deck after The Book of Thoth, a book of secret spells and rituals and Thoth, the god of education, scriptures and writings.  The Thoth Tarot was not finished until after Mr Crowley's death, and was only printed in 1969 so a relatively modern deck. The Rider Waite Smith deck was far earlier and reverted back to the Sola Busca influences of pips with pictures.

The legacy of the Divine has a unique background based on a story about, I will stop there or I will get told off by Pirbid lol


Cassie

[cedars]

I have just come from London and visited my two favourite shops and browsed through some of the decks which were readily available for clients to touch and browse through, including the one that Pirbid is raving about - the Legacy deck.

I could not 'converse' at all with the Thoth deck. They were to me something like Picasso psychedelic colours and pictures. They did not convey any meaning or feeling to me and they came across far too abstract.

The Legacy, hmmmm, typical of Marchetti's other decks that I have seen before, not different from the Gilded tarot in its painting style and colouring. The Knight of Cups does not relay to me at all any of the thoughts and the feelings, as well as the personality traits of the RW Knight of Cups. As for the Moon, I really dont know what to say on those semi-naked pictures.  I liked the Queen of Wands, but I did not get the same feeling about the Page of Swords; the latter came across to me the same as RW's Page of Cups. If they are depicting humans - like the court cards - I prefer to see humans in the picture rather than a helmet or an inanimate object. After all, court cards are humans, even though they are a pain in the back side to read (I agree with you there Sweetsunray).

I agree with Cassie, even though I have not gone too deep into its history, that Crowley and Waite came from two different backgrounds in as far as their tarot ideas and methodology, and I suppose we could not and would not expect their decks to be conversant with each other.

I am always open to new decks, BUT ONLY if they talk to me. I would not collect for the sake of collecting only.

So far, I use RW Original and RW Universal. I find the latter is crisper in its imagery and more detailed , but I also find that where human beings are concerned, I prefer not to have a clear picture of their face and colour of their eyes and such details. It becomes a distracting factor when pictures are so clear. I feel I start relating them to a particular face that I may know or may look familiar to me. In that regard the RW Original version is a bit vague and every reading resonates a different facial image in my mind.

Just because RW is good for beginners and just because the pictures are 'easy' to interpret, it does not mean in my opinion that going to more 'complex' decks will make the readings better. I dont buy that idea.  What is wrong when the imagery is accessible to the reader and the querent alike? Are we less of a reader just because RW is good for beginners? I don't think so at all.

Once I was told to give up RW and go down the route of Osho Zen tarot. I did try - although did not buy the deck- and read about it and looked at the deck and decided NOPE, not for me.

I wish to have a second or a third deck to get familiar with, but I would like the cards to tell me a story, a picture, a scenario touching our daily human life rather than some abstract, space-age imagery.

When I find that deck, rest assured I will yell  :smt005

[sweetsunray]

I understand your feelings about the Toth deck, Cedars. The cards aren't graphics, but were giant paintings (you can see that on the cards... the images have a grandeur). And yes, they are expressionist works of colour and figures. I wouldn't go as far as Picasso's cubism. Then again I don't have a problem with Picasso's imagery. I can sit for hours before Guernica and it's like I'm bulldozered with its raw power of war it depicts cubistically. For me it is breathtaking. I started drawing school from 6 years, went to adult painting school when I was 14 (years ahead). My painting idols were the expressionists such as Ensor, and Dali and Picasso (once I saw his work live in Paris at 16). I'm an expressionist painter myself, and used life size canvas. Used to be figurative (I even did fantasy card illustration work as a student) but since I'm 27 I paint abstract. So work of the artist who painted under Corwley's directives fits my visual style. Because I'm an expressionist painter myself (with that I mean that is how I naturally translate my emotions in images), expressionist imagery is easy to access.

But even then, I needed some time to get into it to use it for readings first hand.

Yes, Cedars, some decks work with some but not with others.  

Yes, the RW and Crowley had different views, and it shows in the interpretations of the cards. For example, Crowley kept Justice as the 6th Major Arcana, and Strength (which he calls Lust) as the 11th Major Arcana card. The whole of the deck imagery is heavily featured with Egyptian symbols. And he relies heavily on the Kaballah, of which I personally have little training on. Some of the more negative cards in RW are more positive in Crowley. 2 of swords is Peace, with a harmonious yellow to green background. 4 of cups is Luxury and more of a positive card, solely the grey smokey upper background reveals there might be a darker side to the card. 7 of disks is called Failure and dark, dark, dark. 2 of wands are crossed and produce electricity, exactly what the RW card says is lacking by the distance of the two wands. And the 2 of disks are ying and yang encompassed by a snake eating its own tail... making an upright infinity symbol (thereby hinting at a problem). The ugliest card is definitely 7 of cups called Debauch... You really don't wanna have that one show up in a spread for an outcome... ugh. 8 of cups is dark too. It's got the same theme... nothing wrong, but leaving anyway... but it's expressed in a dark way. And the 6 of swords, usually a card to denoting moving on but with sorrow in your heart, here just means rational science. Also benign, but devoid of emotion. I guess in a way the RW and Crowley say the same thing, but no traveling in the Toth card. The Moon says the scary path is open to the querent and the way that leads to the light (in contrast the chain between the guarding dogs of the Legacy of the Divine moon opposes this view). The Devil is a positive card as well, where the Devil is seen as a force of nature, and the person just not understanding it yet. And then I didn't mention the Magician yet, who you may automatically see more as an image of the Fool.

On a sidenote - I had the Moon as card for today... and I wrote some blog posts on dream science today and what the conclusions are in the scentific field for dream analysis.

I perused through all of the cards of the Legacy of the Divine deck on the site link you provided Pirbid. Hmm, the court cards seem to be its weakness imo. The only ones I like of them are the Queens, but even there some of them seem to lose their meaning. I simply cannot think of the Queen of Swords as a widow. At first I liked the Knight of Cups, because I thought it was a helmet for that card alone on purpose. But when I noticed this was so for every Knight it was more of a disappointment. Basically there seem to be 8 court cards representing the element as a pure form: pages and knights. And the kings seem to be added because there ought to be kings.

When it comes to court cards, I came upon a view once that did help me to understand what to do with them. In that view Pages are to be seen as opportunities, just like the Aces. The difference is that Aces are opportunities birthed from within, whereas pages are opportunities held out to you from outside of yourself. The pages of the Legacy of the Divine would seem to fit that view. In the same view Knights aren't persons either, but they represent an atmosphere of that element. Again the Legacy of the Divine Knights would fit such a view to the T. This view only leaves the Queen and Kings to be persons. Once I started to work with the pages and knights with that view I must say I tapped into a better grasp of the Court Cards.

[pirbid]

Amazing insights, as usual. It's great to read all of you people.

Cedars, RW is my all time favorite. And I suppose it's proved by the fact that I only read with it or its clones, including Marchetti's decks. I am not well versed in Kabala either -I certainly hope PayeWacker may gives us a hand there-, so RW is far easier for me to understand.

Sweetsunray, I never knew you are a painter! What surprises one gets. You seem to be multitalented and good at everything -sighing with healthy envy -.

[cedars]

Sweetsunray,
I cant draw a straight line to save my life. However, having said that, I do appreciate Dali's paintings. When I mentioned Picasso vs the Thoth deck, I was sort of exaggerating and in a way referring to the complexities of the imagery of the Thoth deck.

Dear Piribid, I didn't mean any offence when I referred to the Legacy of the Divine deck which I understand you have been waiting for quite sometime now. I know you have most of the Marchetti's decks and good on you. You were the only one who gave us a taste of a variety of decks during Gem's lessons when you so generously scanned and posted the various images. It was a treat for me, as you saved me going to the different sites looking for them <wink> <wink>

[pirbid]

Yep, but I have now discovered it is far easier to paste the links on the post and be done with it! &nbsp;:smt003

Anyway, the interesting thing was to see a certain card from several different decks and be able to compare them, just to see if you would read the same things with one deck or another. And I think you don't, but still the same global meaning should come across in the end of a whole reading.

Actually, have you seen this deck that has 4 different deck cards on each card? Let's see if I can find it for you. I came across it only yesterday, I think...

http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/co ... ndex.shtml

See? Each card has the version from the Universal, Origins, Marseilles and the Sphinx. You can clearly see the RW must be based on the Marseilles, but the others haven't much to do with anything. It would take me ages to relate to them.

[cedars]

Yes, they do indeed Pirbid.

yesterday I came across a deck which has 98 cards... It has one additional suit and I think it is called Ethereal suit??? Not so sure.

I had a look at them and didnt like the quality of the cards.

That was enough for me to discard the whole thing.

[pirbid]

I just read that little exchange in the reading forum. I can see your point, others don't. We are susceptible at that tender age, I guess. I couldn't relate to give a reading there, either.

[cedars]

I hear you Pirbid and thanks for sharing it with me.

[scarabcameo]

May I ask, what is the additional suit?

[scarabcameo]

Oops, I mean how is it represented? "Ethereal" implies that it would be hard to convey physically or materially by its nature.