gregory
Wow ! I guess that's why the letter says what it does 
Thanks, roppo.
Thanks, roppo.
The Third Roses & Lilies RWS pack
jackdaw*
If I was paying that kind of money for a deck I'd make damn sure I could bring it up to a workable condition.
gregory
Even if that would make it "unhistoric" ? Sounds kind of like painting over the faded bits of an old master painting !!!
PathWalker
This is more like a treasured first edition rather than a paperback use it every day, kind of thing.
jackdaw*
I don't buy decks to collect and fawn over.
Any more.
Nobody ought to lecture anyone else on how to treat their own decks if they buy it. Every time an antique deck comes up the same thing comes up. If I wanted to glue it to make it usable, I would. I'd buy it to USE. To shuffle and read and study and carry around. I can't do that with the cards peeling.
I have owned first editions before, incidentally. And I read 'em. And carried 'em around in all kinds of weather. And folded the corners down to mark the page if my offspring lost the bookmark. So there.
Any more.
Nobody ought to lecture anyone else on how to treat their own decks if they buy it. Every time an antique deck comes up the same thing comes up. If I wanted to glue it to make it usable, I would. I'd buy it to USE. To shuffle and read and study and carry around. I can't do that with the cards peeling.
I have owned first editions before, incidentally. And I read 'em. And carried 'em around in all kinds of weather. And folded the corners down to mark the page if my offspring lost the bookmark. So there.
OnePotato
Hello StarlightExp and Roppo.
As I said earlier, this is not a deck that some well-intentioned do-it-yourselfer ought to destroy with a bottle of Elmer's glue.
Lots of history ends up destroyed that way.
One will need the experience and expertise of a professional paper conservator to make an informed decision as to how best to handle it.
The first step would almost certainly be to photographically document the current condition.
This is standard museum practice before any work is attempted.
This should cover Mr Roppo's concern.
The next will be to determine a course of action that will halt any further deterioration, and make the decision as to the appropriate degree of restoration, if any.
I expect they will do some reaction tests, and suggest options for removing the old glue from all cards, as it will only cause continued trouble in the future.
Obviously, the chosen method will depend upon what the glue actually turns out to be, and how both the ink in the images, and the three different layers of paper will be affected by the operation.
For example, the glue may adhere differently on different layers. The wrong solvent may destroy the ink or paper. Manual scraping with a scalpel may, or may not be a safe option. (Though it would certainly be more expensive.) The job may require several steps.
I also expect that a discussion about options for re-assembly will involve some decisions.
Pros and cons of various adhesives, how best to avoid warping or curling, and whether or not to risk the pressure of running it through a press, for example.
The cost/risk ratio may be an issue.
It will likely end up as a lovely thing, but the cost of fixing 78 cards will be significant.
I'll make a wild guess of $25 to $50 per card, maybe more or less, keeping in mind that a bargain hunt could end up in complete disaster.
But of course the buyer is free to do as they wish.
Shuffling it into the ground is also an option.
Anyway, good luck!
As I said earlier, this is not a deck that some well-intentioned do-it-yourselfer ought to destroy with a bottle of Elmer's glue.
Lots of history ends up destroyed that way.
One will need the experience and expertise of a professional paper conservator to make an informed decision as to how best to handle it.
The first step would almost certainly be to photographically document the current condition.
This is standard museum practice before any work is attempted.
This should cover Mr Roppo's concern.
The next will be to determine a course of action that will halt any further deterioration, and make the decision as to the appropriate degree of restoration, if any.
I expect they will do some reaction tests, and suggest options for removing the old glue from all cards, as it will only cause continued trouble in the future.
Obviously, the chosen method will depend upon what the glue actually turns out to be, and how both the ink in the images, and the three different layers of paper will be affected by the operation.
For example, the glue may adhere differently on different layers. The wrong solvent may destroy the ink or paper. Manual scraping with a scalpel may, or may not be a safe option. (Though it would certainly be more expensive.) The job may require several steps.
I also expect that a discussion about options for re-assembly will involve some decisions.
Pros and cons of various adhesives, how best to avoid warping or curling, and whether or not to risk the pressure of running it through a press, for example.
The cost/risk ratio may be an issue.
It will likely end up as a lovely thing, but the cost of fixing 78 cards will be significant.
I'll make a wild guess of $25 to $50 per card, maybe more or less, keeping in mind that a bargain hunt could end up in complete disaster.
But of course the buyer is free to do as they wish.
Shuffling it into the ground is also an option.
Anyway, good luck!
gregory
If I could afford to bid - I would just have to keep it in its current condition, in "ideal storage" conditions... - that I can manage
Which is the main reason I almost certainly won't bid. As it stands today, I could JUST afford to bid - but not to restore it. Then again - maybe it would in some ways be more "interesting" as it stands ?
Which is the main reason I almost certainly won't bid. As it stands today, I could JUST afford to bid - but not to restore it. Then again - maybe it would in some ways be more "interesting" as it stands ?
truelighth
It seems I totally missed this thread! Gregory told me about it, after I told her about the auction. I am very excited to see this deck.
And yes, Roppo, indeed, that would be the third copy of the Roses&Lilies back to ever show up. Which is btw, why I am so excited. When Kaplan's copy appeared, it seemed like an anomaly, people were not really sure about it. Then mine appeared and it proved this deck was printed. Now we can be sure of that, with a third copy around. I agree, the letter from Rider is very important! That was one of the first things I thought too when I saw it.. oh, that letter!!!
To be honest, when I first read the letter, I had a different theory. I thought it might actually prove the fact that the Roses&Lilies was printed and issued before the crackled back Pam-A. You see, I have both and if you compare the R&L with the crackled back, the surface of the latter is much, much smoother and different. So to me it made sense that the new edition that was printed early march according to the letter, would be the crackled back Pam-A.
However, I do have to say that my R&L really doesn't have any bad cards, no peeling of the surface of the cards at all. Which then makes it more plausible what roppo said, this is the first printing. Mine must be from the second batch then, where the card stock was improved.
There is however a difference in the card stock between the crackled back and the R&L as well, the R&L is much thicker and heavier. So that leaves some questions open again, I guess.
Anyway, very excited to see this and I will be watching (not bidding).
Btw, Frank Jensen doesn't have a R&L Pam-A. The deck he used for his studies of the book he wrote and that he measured was mine. But I do remember him mentioning a Pam-A with brown Roses and Lilies on the back. I think he did own that one.. not sure anymore...
And yes, Roppo, indeed, that would be the third copy of the Roses&Lilies back to ever show up. Which is btw, why I am so excited. When Kaplan's copy appeared, it seemed like an anomaly, people were not really sure about it. Then mine appeared and it proved this deck was printed. Now we can be sure of that, with a third copy around. I agree, the letter from Rider is very important! That was one of the first things I thought too when I saw it.. oh, that letter!!!
To be honest, when I first read the letter, I had a different theory. I thought it might actually prove the fact that the Roses&Lilies was printed and issued before the crackled back Pam-A. You see, I have both and if you compare the R&L with the crackled back, the surface of the latter is much, much smoother and different. So to me it made sense that the new edition that was printed early march according to the letter, would be the crackled back Pam-A.
However, I do have to say that my R&L really doesn't have any bad cards, no peeling of the surface of the cards at all. Which then makes it more plausible what roppo said, this is the first printing. Mine must be from the second batch then, where the card stock was improved.
There is however a difference in the card stock between the crackled back and the R&L as well, the R&L is much thicker and heavier. So that leaves some questions open again, I guess.
Anyway, very excited to see this and I will be watching (not bidding).
Btw, Frank Jensen doesn't have a R&L Pam-A. The deck he used for his studies of the book he wrote and that he measured was mine. But I do remember him mentioning a Pam-A with brown Roses and Lilies on the back. I think he did own that one.. not sure anymore...
truelighth
For those who are just like me interested (or obsessed) about this subject. Here is an excerpt from Frank Jensen's book about the Rider Waite Smith, concerning the Pam-A with crackled back and the Roses&Lilies version:
Which deck is the 1909 printrun and which is the 1910
can not be said with certainty. Information given by R. A.
Gilbert in his “A.E.Waite. A Bibliography” (1983) about the
1910 printrun as being of a better card quality is, however, a
clue. Both packs are of almost same thickness, but the pebbled
pack appears to have a surface that is slightly smoother,
the most important difference is, however, the weight of the
two decks (a detail, I unfortunately had not included earlier
in my research). The weight of the pebbled back deck is considerably
heavier than that of the roses/lilies pack. A weight
difference, that indicates a cardboard weight of 365-370
grammes cardboard used for the pebbled deck and 325-330
grammes only for the roses/lilies. And, indeed, a heavier paper
weight is normally considered a sign of a better quality.
Logically seen, it is also unlikely that the first edition was
printed with the pebbled back, then the second with the roses/
lilies and the next print again with the pebbled. I would therefore
consider the roses and lilies pack being the 1909 version
and that the 1910 pack was changed to the brown pebbled
standard back used ever since.
If I read this, then the letter can indeed support my theory about the crackled back being the later print run of the early spring. The card stock of my R&L is clearly inferior to the crackled back ones. Maybe I have just been lucky that my R&L is still in such a good condition... ah, if only we knew for sure!
Which deck is the 1909 printrun and which is the 1910
can not be said with certainty. Information given by R. A.
Gilbert in his “A.E.Waite. A Bibliography” (1983) about the
1910 printrun as being of a better card quality is, however, a
clue. Both packs are of almost same thickness, but the pebbled
pack appears to have a surface that is slightly smoother,
the most important difference is, however, the weight of the
two decks (a detail, I unfortunately had not included earlier
in my research). The weight of the pebbled back deck is considerably
heavier than that of the roses/lilies pack. A weight
difference, that indicates a cardboard weight of 365-370
grammes cardboard used for the pebbled deck and 325-330
grammes only for the roses/lilies. And, indeed, a heavier paper
weight is normally considered a sign of a better quality.
Logically seen, it is also unlikely that the first edition was
printed with the pebbled back, then the second with the roses/
lilies and the next print again with the pebbled. I would therefore
consider the roses and lilies pack being the 1909 version
and that the 1910 pack was changed to the brown pebbled
standard back used ever since.
If I read this, then the letter can indeed support my theory about the crackled back being the later print run of the early spring. The card stock of my R&L is clearly inferior to the crackled back ones. Maybe I have just been lucky that my R&L is still in such a good condition... ah, if only we knew for sure!
truelighth
concerning the Pam-A with the brown Roses&Lilies back, Frank doesn't own it. He is referring to it in his book though. Here is another excerpt:
a back side pattern consisting of squares of roses and lilies printed in a light blue color. The same pattern, but printed with a red/brown ink was then known only from one early Pam-A deck, belonging to the now closed museum of the United States Playing Card Company (USPCC), where it was registered with a 1916 date.
Seems current whereabouts of this deck is now unknown.
Ok, I will now try and not obsess any further...
.
a back side pattern consisting of squares of roses and lilies printed in a light blue color. The same pattern, but printed with a red/brown ink was then known only from one early Pam-A deck, belonging to the now closed museum of the United States Playing Card Company (USPCC), where it was registered with a 1916 date.
Seems current whereabouts of this deck is now unknown.
Ok, I will now try and not obsess any further...
.