rwcarter
My deck arrived today, but it's been a bad day. So even though I opened the box and thumbed through a few of the cards, I stopped cause I want my first intro to this deck to happen on a better day.
Rodney
Rodney
Starlight Dragon Deck - Steph Engert and Nora Huszka
rwcarter
The cards are beautiful. Will I be able to read with them? Not sure. Without the numbering I can't identify some of the cards. And I'll have to study the moody/illustrated Minors. And that's where the larger companion book would come in handy. But that's been delayed. Still happy to have bought the deck and will investigate the spreads and ways of laying out/using the cards. But probably not until the book arrives.
Rodney
Rodney
Spiffo
Um, they have numbers on them, Majors and Minors in the top corner. Plus the colour of the half circles signifies the element, with gold being used for the Majors. But as it was a bad day perhaps you just missed them. Take a tick to read the intro in the LWB and it will,become clear. X
rwcarter
Yes, I know they have numbers on them.
I was typing quickly. What I meant, for example, was that without the number on it, I wouldn't know that the Major numbered I is the Magician since I don't really see anything Magician-like in the image even though it's a beautiful image. I can kind of see the youthful aspect of the unnumbered Fool. There are a number of other cards that I wouldn't be able to place if they didn't have the Roman numeral on them.Rodney
Spiffo
Yes, I know they have numbers on them.
Rodney
Ah, I see what you mean. Yes it is another world. Will take time to get to know.
AnemoneRosie
Interesting. When I went through the Majors I found that I could name almost all of them immediately. I still need to read the LWB.
I like that the minors are relatively unscenic, although I need to work on learning the court system.
However, as someone who is non-gender-specific I really appreciate that the courts are equally flexible with gender!!!
I like that the minors are relatively unscenic, although I need to work on learning the court system.
However, as someone who is non-gender-specific I really appreciate that the courts are equally flexible with gender!!!
rwcarter
ALMOST all of them. So we agree there.
Without the number in the upper left hand corner and without the deck being in order, I don't know that I'd be able to name SOME of them just by looking at the image. At least not until I'm much more familiar with the deck.
Rodney
AnemoneRosie
I tend to use the numbers in just about every deck I own. It's not a big deal, for me.
Farzon
I received the deck during my holidays as expected! My neighbors took the parcel for me so I don't have to wait until tomorrow to head to the post office! Lucky me! 
I just took a first look through the deck. The cards are really beautiful! I can't say much more until I try to read with them though. And I have a few negative issues:
The gilded edges seem to have been done in a rather unprofessional way. After handling the cards my hands shimmer with golden dust. There's also golden dust on the cards already.
I agree with Rodney on the abstract design of the cards - not all of them are recognizable at first sight to me. Cards like the Hanged Man and Temperance need human figures in them to get their meaning across. The minors seem to be just mandalas, nothing more. I can live with that, but I would have hoped for more "speaking" pips, like in Thoth-like decks.
My last point of critique is the naming of the courts. The fiery aspect simply has to be the Knight, the airy aspect the Prince or King. I think there's enough evidence that it's like that even in RWS. But there are different views on that point, so that's more of a very subjective topic. And as I see it, I won't be using the LWB a lot ob this deck anyway.
I'm really excited to see how this deck works for me in a reading. I'll try later today. Then I'll see if my first negative observations will prevail.
I just took a first look through the deck. The cards are really beautiful! I can't say much more until I try to read with them though. And I have a few negative issues:
The gilded edges seem to have been done in a rather unprofessional way. After handling the cards my hands shimmer with golden dust. There's also golden dust on the cards already.
I agree with Rodney on the abstract design of the cards - not all of them are recognizable at first sight to me. Cards like the Hanged Man and Temperance need human figures in them to get their meaning across. The minors seem to be just mandalas, nothing more. I can live with that, but I would have hoped for more "speaking" pips, like in Thoth-like decks.
My last point of critique is the naming of the courts. The fiery aspect simply has to be the Knight, the airy aspect the Prince or King. I think there's enough evidence that it's like that even in RWS. But there are different views on that point, so that's more of a very subjective topic. And as I see it, I won't be using the LWB a lot ob this deck anyway.
I'm really excited to see how this deck works for me in a reading. I'll try later today. Then I'll see if my first negative observations will prevail.
Farzon
Addition to my previous post:
I played around a lot with this deck today. The shape of the cards ruins a lot of my usual spreads as the cards simply don't seem to belong to each other when they're lying corner to corner. I always feel the need to fill the gaps between them. Maybe this need will go away with the time.
Until then I'll have to work with it rather than against it. This deck works well with four-card-layouts like described in the LWB. Three cards do work very well for me in an arrow shape to show how to principles work together towards an outcome. I also found the deck very apt for relationship spreads or for circular layouts.
It's a real beauty, by the way. However, some negative points won't go away: the LWB explains the minor's design, but sometimes the impressions the cards give ate only very subtle leaning towards their meaning. Maybe it's more close to a Marseille-style deck than a Thoth-style one.
The biggest issue I have isn't with the deck itself, though. It's with the LWB. Some of the texts about dragons are, in my terms, cheesy and by no means useful in a practical sense. The texts about the cards are no revelation either... Worst of all: the spread section is very disappointing to me. Especially the Treasure-spread is highly illogical in it's structure. The other spreads are good inputs for designing own layouts, but not much of a revelation either. I was expecting more here...
I played around a lot with this deck today. The shape of the cards ruins a lot of my usual spreads as the cards simply don't seem to belong to each other when they're lying corner to corner. I always feel the need to fill the gaps between them. Maybe this need will go away with the time.
Until then I'll have to work with it rather than against it. This deck works well with four-card-layouts like described in the LWB. Three cards do work very well for me in an arrow shape to show how to principles work together towards an outcome. I also found the deck very apt for relationship spreads or for circular layouts.
It's a real beauty, by the way. However, some negative points won't go away: the LWB explains the minor's design, but sometimes the impressions the cards give ate only very subtle leaning towards their meaning. Maybe it's more close to a Marseille-style deck than a Thoth-style one.
The biggest issue I have isn't with the deck itself, though. It's with the LWB. Some of the texts about dragons are, in my terms, cheesy and by no means useful in a practical sense. The texts about the cards are no revelation either... Worst of all: the spread section is very disappointing to me. Especially the Treasure-spread is highly illogical in it's structure. The other spreads are good inputs for designing own layouts, but not much of a revelation either. I was expecting more here...
