The Pamela Colman Smith Centennial Deck review thread

teomat said:

Thanks Lela . That was the last piece of the jigsaw - I'm now enabled!

Click to expand...

Actually I've changed my mind. I don't really like the back design at all - the PCS signature looks very odd to me . I'm so fickle...

Will we EVER get a good reprint of this deck (sigh)? One that is actually faithful to the original version? The original back design. The original colouring. No tea-staining. Just a straightforward, good-quality mass-market reprint that is exactly like the original version that came out in 1909. Why is that so hard to achieve?

teomat said:

Actually I've changed my mind. I don't really like the back design at all - the PCS signature looks very odd to me . I'm so fickle...

Will we EVER get a good reprint of this deck (sigh)? One that is actually faithful to the original version? The original back design. The original colouring. No tea-staining. Just a straightforward, good-quality mass-market reprint that is exactly like the original version that came out in 1909. Why is that so hard to achieve?

Click to expand...

I think if you see and handle a copy of this deck you'll realise that this is a really good version of the RWS deck. It's lovely.

Edited to add: Take a look at the scans that Coredil put in this post. It really isn't coloured much differently from the very early decks: http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=1867111&postcount=43

Sulis said:

I think if you see and handle a copy of this deck you'll realise that this is a really good version of the RWS deck. It's lovely.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%.

I'm with teomat. I don't like the backs, and I wish they would have printed this one unmuddied and with the crackled mud backs.

But in the interest of fairness, I should say that I am basing this on scans, as I don't have it myself. The murkiness and USG's track record recently with cardstock have me steering clear.

rwcarter, Cerulean, Shade and I compared the Centennial to real Pam A and Pam B (it was all I could do to keep from grabbing one or both beauties and sprinting for the door. Ahem). The US Games centennial is nothing like the coloration on either one.

Interestingly, it is the "Original" Rider-Waite--the one with the roses and lillies backs--that comes closest. This deck is printed in several countries and only one of them has the right coloration and I've forgotten which it is, but rwcarter knows. As I recall, the trick is to buy the box with Temperance on the cover. But confirm with Rodney. The card stock on the Centennial is dreamy thick and waxy, while the greeny-gold Original is printed on ordinary stock with ordinary varnish--nothing problematic but not special either.

eta: crumbs, I see that truelighth discussed this already, with scans etc. For me, the Centennial was just too dark.

Sulis said:

It really isn't coloured much differently from the very early decks: http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=1867111&postcount=43

Click to expand...

Oh I agree the colouring is miles better than the 'standard' RWS. But I would have just liked the real thing, without the tea-staining, new back design and all the postcards, books etc that make this set rather pricey.

I just want the original deck, as how it appeared when it first came out. I don't understand why this seems to be so impossible to achieve? And given that the RWS is arguably the most popular deck in the world, why has there never been an attempt to produce the deck with it's correct colouration and back design before? Why have we been stuck with the 'poor' version for so long? Why do we have all the 'close but not cigar' versions, when it's perfectly possible to have an actual version of the original deck?

(sorry for the lots of 'why's' - not trying to be ranty, but just genuinely interested)

Debra said:

Interestingly, it is the "Original" Rider-Waite--the one with the roses and lillies backs--that comes closest

Click to expand...

Exactly what I have said before (I think)...Oh well, I knew it even if I didn't say so.

And yes, teomat. I too have no idea why. I have theories - we all do - but really, I mean honestly, I mean, WHY? How difficult is it? It isn't as if the originals all burnt in the library of Alexandria or anything, is it?

Debra said:

rwcarter, Cerulean, Shade and I compared the Centennial to real Pam A and Pam B (it was all I could do to keep from grabbing one or both beauties and sprinting for the door. Ahem). The US Games centennial is nothing like the coloration on either one.

Interestingly, it is the "Original" Rider-Waite--the one with the roses and lilies backs--that comes closest. This deck is printed in several countries and only one of them has the right coloration and I've forgotten which it is, but rwcarter knows.

Click to expand...

This is true. But the Centennial edition IS a nice one, just the same.

Le Fanu said:

Exactly what I have said before (I think)...Oh well, I knew it even if I didn't say so.

And yes, teomat. I too have no idea why. I have theories - we all do - but really, I mean honestly, I mean, WHY? How difficult is it? It isn't as if the originals all burnt in the library of Alexandria or anything, is it?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what all the theories are... or if it's really a conspiracy of some kind.

If USG (or any other publisher) actually reprinted a mass-market version of the Pam-A, I guess all the previous versions (which we've been stuck with, and which have made a shed-load of money in all their varieties) would be dismissed as 'fakes'.

Who would want a facsimile when you can have the real thing?

Making an "authentic copy" is not so straightforward. Different types of printing processes and inks, different papers and how they interact with the inks, how everything ages, what to do with the dirty fingerprints are all part of why making a good facsimile is more of an art than a straightforward scan-and-print job. OnePotato told me that he "didn't do anything" when he printed copies of Strambo's tarot from his old original, but it turns out that his "nothing" was quite a lot of subtle work. It takes an artist's careful eye. And once you figure out how you want it to look, there's the technical reality of dealing with printing presses, inks and papers and varnishes which can be difficult to control. And then the "authentic copy" itself ages and gets tea spilled on it...

eta: And what would Pam want, or Artie Waite, if they had today's inks and papers to work with? For all we know they'd go for day-glo!