Differences Between the RW and Visconti Sforza Decks

Tarotwolf said:

It seems to me these two decks are about as different as you can get when comparing tarot decks.

Click to expand...

Ah, I'd have to agree with Tarotwolf with his qualification, "when comparing tarot decks". Given that qualification, there probably is a pretty clear distinction, but - whether Visconti or RWS - the Majors are still recognizable; you could probably correctly assign the name to the image in the Visconti without seeing the titles in most if not all cases. Try it when you get the deck - take out all the Majors, mix them up well, and see how many you can assign the name to (in the Visconti decks the Majors are unnumbered and untitled). The courts might be a bit more difficult, of course; depends on how well you know them.

As to your question, Tinevisce, it's not so much that "visual depth is missing" as it's a completely different paradigm - RWS uses a visual, imagistic approach for the minors while the Visconti (and other decks with non-scenic pips such as all the Marseille variants) uses a numeric approach (e.g. showing ten swords, three cups, etc.) with some decorative elements. There's also a third school (again as Tarotwolf mentioned) which I think of as the semi-illustrated pips approach, in which the number of suit items are the focus, but which include other esoteric symbols and some imagery that never quite reaches the full 'mid-story' approach Pixie Smith gave us in the RWS (the Thoth and some other Golden Dawn decks are the best examples of this - take a look at the Thoth pips in the Aeclectic Thoth page in Cards).

Anyway, I really do hope you enjoy your Visconti-Sforza, Tinevisce. Let us know what you think when you get them.

whipsilk said:

Hi Tinevisce -
Welcome to Aeclectic Tarot! I'm excited that you've branched out into a Visconti for your second deck - it certainly is a beautiful, evocative deck. I think there are (or at least were) three different makers who published them - Lo Scarabeo, US Games, and Il Meneghello. The latter is a limited edition and I don't think is offered on Amazon, so you probably got either the Lo Scarabeo or the US Games - although I think there's a 'kit' version from Race Point of the Lo Scarabeo cards. The main differences are in the size of the cards (the US Games cards are quite large, while the LS cards will be closer in size to your RWS cards), the fact that the LS cards are a lavish restoration while the US Games cards are a more evocative and ancient-looking reproduction (the colors are much less bright), and the artist used to supply the four missing cards - although you probably won't be able to tell which are 'modern' at first glance; I couldn't.

Click to expand...

Just for the record - there's a new large card one out - calling itself the Golden Tarot of Visconti Sforza, with a book by Mary Packard which is actually not half bad. The cards have been "recreated" by Rachel Clowes - a new artist to me - and the four "missing ones" are not like any of those added to complete any of the other versions. Quite interesting, that. They are a nice production, I have to say. Not quite lush - but close. And in a REALLY good box !

There's a thread here:

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=189593

Easy to find on Amazon.

As to your question, Tinevisce, it's not so much that "visual depth is missing" as it's a completely different paradigm - RWS uses a visual, imagistic approach for the minors while the Visconti (and other decks with non-scenic pips such as all the Marseille variants) uses a numeric approach (e.g. showing ten swords, three cups, etc.) with some decorative elements

Click to expand...

I think I understand the differences a lot better now: that's a very succinct way to put it!