RWS Clones

I'm thinking of closely similar clones, such as the Universal Waite. Are such decks automatically worthless because they differ slightly from the more crudely printed "original" versions, or do they somehow totally miss the intended symbolism?

US Games Universal and blue and white lily Original were my first two tarot decks.
Even knowing nothing about the history of the why the RWS was done, I felt the Universal, in the recoloring and softening, missed the point of some of the symbology that got, in effect, airbrushed out.

I no long have Any of the original or several clone specific decks or I'd point out examples.

To answer your specific question I don't think any deck is worthless for reading, but I found the clones to be fairly useless for study.

LRichard said:

I'm thinking of closely similar clones, such as the Universal Waite. Are such decks automatically worthless because they differ slightly from the more crudely printed "original" versions, or do they somehow totally miss the intended symbolism?

Click to expand...

If one compares the numerous WS releases, the pre-copyright recolorations and variations, versions or editions or printings of Eden Gray's and Waite's book illustrations, Hanson-Roberts' recoloration, Radiant, and that Italian revisioning... it's difficult to know where the original Smith-created and Waite-induced symbolism starts and stops and where the license taken by the various artists starts or stops.

Some of the details are completely muddied up in the WS packs by the cumulative errors made by printing new issues from photographic reproductions of copies of old originals. For that reason, I like the Radiant and Universal because the lines are more clear, the details more immediate. Did theses artists reinterpret or alter Pamela's art or Waite's visions? Or have they replaced or reemphasized what was lost or obscured?

Has anyone ever interviewed Mary Hanson-Roberts aboiut her commission with Kaplan to update Pamela's art? That would be interesting reading.

Personally, I don't consider any of the clones worthless but what exactly did you mean? Are they of no use in reading? I do not see how that could be since a reading could be performed with numbered index cards. Should they be disregarded? I do not believe so. They're just so much fun.

LRichard said:

I'm thinking of closely similar clones, such as the Universal Waite. Are such decks automatically worthless because they differ slightly from the more crudely printed "original" versions, or do they somehow totally miss the intended symbolism?

Click to expand...

Though I prefer my nice crisp "normal" RWS, plaid backs and all, I'd say NO -- the Universal and other recolors are not worthless for reading or for general study. There is still a wealth of symbolism there. Unless you want to make a close study of the minute details (which may or may not even be intended -- see bogiesan's point about cumulative printing errors) then I say go with whichever version appeals the most.

There are people who insist that, for example, the Universal Waite totally distorts the symbolism intended by Waite. However, even Holley Voley, the well-known Rider-Waite expert and collector, uses the Universal for readings, so it can't be too bad. I don't do fortune-telling (except when requested to do so), but I do use the cards for meditation and self-analysis, and I haven't noticed any significant differences in symbolism between the Universal and a standard Rider-Waite.

So much depends on the reader's preferences. Some people are purists, and want a deck that is the closest to the original as possible. That's great -- for them. Other people enjoy a good re-interpretation, and there's nothing wrong with that either.

Unfortunately there is a tendency among some RWS purists to diss those who choose the Universal or other clones. I guess that's part of human nature, but imo, they don't get to say what's best for everyone. Just let it roll off, like water on a duck's back, and use what works for you -- that's my advice anyway.

Also, if the earliest means the most authentic, and the most authentic means the best -- why aren't we all reading the Visconti?

Indeed, the ultimate purist of all purists should opt for the Visconti.

I think that Rider decks that are just recoloured are unjustly being called clones e.g. Albano-Waite. In my opinion, a Rider clone is more like Hanson-Roberts or Morgan-Greer.

The only thing that really matters is that you like the deck. I love Radiant Rider and I don't give a toss if it is considered a 'lesser' deck by the purists. The Universal is a great recolouring of the Rider and I don't feel it is missing anything that is in the traditional version.


Freddie

Freddie said:

I think that Rider decks that are just recoloured are unjustly being called clones e.g. Albano-Waite. In my opinion, a Rider clone is more like Hanson-Roberts or Morgan-Greer.

The only thing that really matters is that you like the deck. I love Radiant Rider and I don't give a toss if it is considered a 'lesser' deck by the purists. The Universal is a great recolouring of the Rider and I don't feel it is missing anything that is in the traditional version.


Freddie

Click to expand...

The Radiant is a beautiful deck. Some people don't like some of the facial expressions, so they go with the Universal. Yes, I think recolorings should not be called clones, especially not the Albano. Frankie Albano was meticulously careful with the symbolism; even the colors have a certain authenticity. The coloring follows Paul Foster Case's coloring instructions (derived from Golden Dawn color symbolism) as much as possible.

Don't some of the Albano cards actually have different images from the RWS? I'm thinking of the rainbow above the angel's head on Temperance, for example. This would also make it less of a clone.