Tarot Mucha

[Le Fanu]

Thanks Leffy - I'm glad someone else likes it too

And, you know, it feels like a *serious* deck. Like LoS have gone all out to produce something that feels weighty in the hand - like the Illuminati does - something that will seduce the person who is indecisive and wavering. It's a proper, solid, unabashed RWS deck. None of their usual "out there" cards. There have been decks which they have released (Mystic Spiral? Dream Enchantress? Elemental Tarot?) which really haven't made much sense to me. Rushed out for some reason I shall never fathom. This one feels like it's been calculated to charm the masses. Hopefully for Christmas. Are they in a new phase of thinking more carefully about their public, I wonder? I think the last two big releases (this and the Ceccolli) have been superb. And very well thought out. I hope those cartoony mish-mash decks are a thing of the past.

Admittedly, people might not like the floweriness and diaphanous nymphettes. They might want something more minimalist and robust but I really rather like it.

 

[daphne]

I have - finally - been able to have a proper sit down, a nice cup of tea and looked closely at this deck.

First impressions; sensual and extremely decorative. There is much more of Mucha than just the Seasons. I see Sarah Bernhardt in the Pages for starters. I recognise quite a few of his lithographs etc too - but really, I'd rather not recognise anything to be honest. Otherwise I get a feeling of something shoe-horned. It's the spirit I want to feel. I hate motif-hunting.

But it is so very decorative and sinuous and sensual. I love the slightly muted colours. It wouldn't work brighter. It is totally RWS. I think that perhaps LoS are setting aside certain decks for the market that they want to be utterly RWS for those who want RWS-ness and are disconcerted by anything which isn't (like the Ceccolli Tarot). Thus they have the market pretty much covered; conventional stuff and experimental stuff. This falls into the conventional category. I really do quite like it though. I love the floweriness and flutteriness of it. My deck arrived at sixes and sevens, completely out of order, cards reversed and god knows what. I had to properly check that all cards were there as it was very out of order and randomly upside down. I note the new cardstock they are using; glossier but firmer than previous decks.

But I like this one, I have to say. I shall definitely use it. I wonder if the two part boxes will be a staple of their decks from now on? It is rather like the mini Golden Klimt in terms of design. Their other (tuck) boxes are way more practical - but this is a mere detail. I always hated the Art Nouveau Tarot and the Hanson Roberts and this is completely unlike either of these decks. I think a man (can't help saying this) could use this deck quite happily - not something I'd say of the Art Nouveau or Hanson Roberts. Perhaps the weakest part of it is the Courts but - hey - how easy is it to get courts right? They don't feel different enough. But I can tell from a first look that I will definitely be able to read with this one.

However, you do have to peer a bit to try and recognise the card through the floweriness and wistfulness.

Nice review Le Fanu, as always, thank you.
If I may ask, I see you rave about just another RWS clone. I read also your wonders (negative kinds) and disapprove of the LLewellyn1s Classic tarot, another RWS clone, citing from memory, "why would the world need another RWS", new drawings but exact same take, as Mucha. What is the difference here now? Why is Mucha to be praized as RWS clone, and the other one to be loathed? I was just wondering when reading this review, is it the name, the inspiration, the art, the feeling you get, just another state of mind... ?

 

[Le Fanu]

Nice review Le Fanu, as always, thank you.
If I may ask, I see you rave about just another RWS clone. I read also your wonders (negative kinds) and disapprove of the LLewellyn1s Classic tarot, another RWS clone, citing from memory, "why would the world need another RWS", new drawings but exact same take, as Mucha. What is the difference here now? Why is Mucha to be praized as RWS clone, and the other one to be loathed? I was just wondering when reading this review, is it the name, the inspiration, the art, the feeling you get, just another state of mind... ?

To be honest, I never use the expression a "RWS clone" because I never know what it means. I think the Mucha is "very" RWS in the sense that it uses the system, overlays it with something else and you get a readable, sort-of-familiar deck for those who are tired of the actual RWS and want a different sheen, same scenes. The Mucha is this; same scenes, different sheen (that could be a motto). The Llewellyn Classic Tarot is basically just an exact copy with goofier art. But I'm Ok with decks like the Victorian Romantic, Llewellyn (the Welsh Celtic one), DruidCraft (I'm including ones I like and don't like!), Paulina etc. Are these clones? I thought they were decks with an added, themed depth. I'd consider the Mucha this too. It has a very different atmosphere and take, feels fresh but at the same time familiar.

 

[daphne]

To be honest, I never use the expression a "RWS clone" because I never know what it means. I think the Mucha is "very" RWS in the sense that it uses the system, overlays it with something else and you get a readable, sort-of-familiar deck for those who are tired of the actual RWS and want a different sheen, same scenes. The Mucha is this; same scenes, different sheen (that could be a motto). The Llewellyn Classic Tarot is basically just an exact copy with goofier art. But I'm Ok with decks like the Victorian Romantic, Llewellyn (the Welsh Celtic one), DruidCraft (I'm including ones I like and don't like!), Paulina etc. Are these clones? I thought they were decks with an added, themed depth. I'd consider the Mucha this too. It has a very different atmosphere and take, feels fresh but at the same time familiar.

When you put it like this, I understand what you mean. A clone is exact copy, just redrawn, and the others are a more versatile interpretation of those RWS drawings.

 

[Le Fanu]

But it's an interesting question. I bet we all think different things when we talk about a "RWS clone" (that's why I avoid the term). For me, it's if it brings something new. But then that's subjective because it's what you get out of a deck. And I think if I do use the term, I use it disparagingly - perhaps (confessing here) because I don't like the artwork. It suggests shallow - it's nothing more etc etc.

This deck I think has something more (entirely subjective of course). But I must add, having played with it for 24 hours now, that there is so much deciphering with this deck, so much florid ornament. Which I personally like, if I'm honest. But I suspect it might be the chief criticism levelled at the deck - that it is too fussy and ornate and it's not always easy to sift through what I call the visual flutteriness.

 

[daphne]

This deck I think has something more (entirely subjective of course). But I must add, having played with it for 24 hours now, that there is so much deciphering with this deck, so much florid ornament. Which I personally life, if I'm honest. But I suspect it might be the chief criticism levelled at the deck - that it is too fussy and ornate and it's not always easy to sift through what I call the visual flutteriness.

I ordered it, I am curious about this "visual flutteriness", how it goes. Is it that the cards look all samey? Then indeed, in a layout, I would be bored.

 

[EightWands]

Help please. Which deck am I getting, if I order the one from Amazon that is available now and shipping from "Super book deals"? Does it come with a booklet? I saw a video on YouTube of the deck, and the booklet looks rather thick (diff languages but still looked substantial).

 

[agviz]

Help please. Which deck am I getting, if I order the one from Amazon that is available now and shipping from "Super book deals"? Does it come with a booklet? I saw a video on YouTube of the deck, and the booklet looks rather thick (diff languages but still looked substantial).

Here's the one I ordered: Mucha Tarot on Amazon. It's the deck and I believe it comes with a booklet.

Don't know if this will also help: I noticed that there are two listings on Amazon under two different ISBN numbers. They are ISBN-10: 0738745588 (which I ordered) and ISBN-10: 8865273062. The one I ordered is cheaper by a few dollars. So this confused me and I asked Lo Scarabeo. They quickly responded that they are in fact the same deck (as gregory correctly suggested). There might be different shipping dates for the two in the US.

 

[Le Fanu]

Comes with a 127 page booklet. Nice chunky little thing that fits in the box alongside the cards. More booky than your average LWB.

Pages 1 -71, English version
Pages 72 - 82, very abbreviated Italian version
Pages 83 - 92, very abbreviated Spanish version
Pages 93 - 102, very abbreviated French version
Pages 103 - 114, very abbreviated German version
Pages 115 - 126, (a first for Lo Scarabeo) a very abbreviated Russian version.

As you can see, the English speakers get the better deal. The English text is much more extensive. The English text is by Lunaea Weatherston and Massimiliano Filadoro has done the shortened versions in other languages.

 

[EightWands]

Thank you all. Yes that is quite confusing.