The "Soprafino Tarot" pattern

jackdaw*

Oh my goodness, no, that was a different Queen of Pentacles, but I remember the site well and I'm flattered by the association :) The Queen of Pentacles is my significator, the Court card I'm most drawn to in most decks and that best describes me in terms of personality and even colouring, although I'm not an Earth sign.

As for the site, Huck, I realize what a huge team effort it must be, and I applaud all of you. It's a wonderful asset to Tarot study.

QofP
 

Jeannette

Revived Yet Again...

I'm "bumping" this thread because I recently "dug down" into the Tarot Garden scan pile, and out popped the Solleone Tarocchino Lombardo. In preparation for writing up the short, descriptive accompanying text for the Tarot Garden database, I began to do a bit of reading. Thanks to this thread, my five-minute "familiarization" has turned into several hours of unintended (albeit fun) research.

In reading through this thread (which I've done several times now, but there's so much info here that my eyes are crossing, and I'm not yet quite sure I've got it all straight in my head), I'm seeing the Lombardo "lumped in" with the Meneghello Soprafino and the Lo Scarabeo Classical. However, from what I'm actually observing in the decks, I'm not sure I can say with confidence that the Lombardo is "just" another reproduction of the "original" Della Rocca Soprafino. There are elements that seem to be closer to the "Sessia" variation, although it's fairly clear that the Lombardo isn't a "Sessia" deck either.

I've scanned two sample cards from each of four decks, and posted them at this link. The editions represented are: A) the Meneghello Soprafino (actually a special edition done for Cavallini & Co), B) the Lo Scarabeo Classic Tarot, C) The Solleone Lombardo, and D) the Lo Scarabeo Ancient Italian Tarots. Looking at the "Sun" card, the Lombardo sun itself can clearly be seen to be closer in design to the Sessia (Ancient Italian Tarots), while most of the rest of the card follows the Della Rocca/Gumppenberg "original" more closely.

Furthermore, in the Lombardo, the "Ace of Coins" card appears to read: "Fab. R. Bordo e C - Milano." Presumably, this is the card publisher Bordoni & Co., who, according to Kaplan 2, published in Milan from 1887-1900. Samples from the Lombardo are shown in Kaplan 2 on pp. 362 - 363, where the caption reads, "Reprint of Gumppenberg Lombardy Tarot by Edizione del Solleone." However, on p. 314, Kaplan calls the Lombardo a "reprint" of the Gumppenberg deck by Bordoni, originally published in 1889, and then, of course, republished by Solleone in 1981. Samples of the "Ace of Coins" card from the Bordoni decks are shown in Kaplan 2 on p. 387; the top example looks very, very close to the "Ace of Coins" in the Solleone Lombardo.

Given this information, I suppose it would be inaccurate of me to list the Lombardo in the Tarot Garden database as a reprint of the "original" Soprafino, or to otherwise lump it in that class of reproduction. Instead, the Lombardo appears to be yet another "knockoff" of Della Rocca's original designs, although overall, it appears to be more similar in design/style to Della Rocca's work than the Dotti variants.

Based on the samples provided in the link, would those "in the know" tend to agree with my "splitting" the Lombardo away from the Della Rocca original, or was there information about all this in the thread already that I missed?

-- Jeannette
The Tarot Garden
 

Cerulean

Tarocchino can be a confusing term/Lombardo

1.Tarocchino can refer to a slimmer card size, a 78 card deck as in Tarocchino Milanese with variations:

http://www.tarothermit.com/milanese.htm

or in terms of Tarocchino Bolognese, a smaller card count such as 40, 45, 60...etc...

So if it is a slimmer size or smaller card count, it feels like a departure. But read on below.


2. I have a 'cross-over' Tarocchino Milanese by Bordoni and Il Meneghello's title says it's Tarocchino Milanese, just with double figures. As you saw in Tarot Hermit's site, there's even more variation between the Dotti/Di Gumppenberg/Pietro Masenghini reproductions and it's still "Tarocchino Milanese". I think in this case it is named as a regional pattern "Milanese" as one might say "California Sushi" or "California Burger" because of association and it's safest to go with the name.

My reproduced Tarocchino Milanese A Doppia Figura 1880 from Il Meneghello has a Bordoni back with a reddish printing; the man has has lance, a beret with three or four plumes and hie is astride a horse facing to the right.

So yes, the maker (Bordoni), the size of the deck (slimmer Tarocchino) seems to make it a bit different. The almost-fine cross between figuring if it is engraved or stencilled is something of the cross-hatching shading makes it a puzzle. The colors suggest woodblock, as it is a run of yellow, blue, green and red on a parchment color--by the way, my deck has plastic laminate, which I'm not fond of! Il Solleone decks with the parchment/linen stock are my favorites.

The fact it's a double-figure deck in majors and courts but Marseilles-style Italian pips also makes it a departure; but even this variation is classified, at least by Il Meneghello as a Tarocchino Milanese.

Long answer--yes, you have something that resembles di Gumppenberg's Soprafino, but it may be called Lombardo for a reason...

3. Lombardo as a term might refer to a region that no longer exists, so perhaps the tax stamp or time period of publication would allow you say it is a regional pattern--skip to the sixth paragraph on the page below--you will see it was a region/kingdom of it's own:

http://www.answers.com/topic/lombardy

Do you have any information about it's dating? I assume 78 cards and it's small size seems to imply Tarocchino is for it's size.

My own suggestion based on my limited understanding is go with the title. I'm using your deck as an example --"Tarocchino deck from the Lombard region circa ___ century. Fine details, multiple colors suggest Soprafino or super-fine quality. Interesting variations include_____." (If it's Solleone in it's paper boxes and cards known for their fine linen stock, that is a great point to mention)

Hope that helps.

Cerulean
 

Jeannette

Cerulean,

The information you have posted is very interesting, and the link to Tom Tadford Little's page on the "Milanese pattern" very useful. However, I'm not clear on where your mention of the Meneghello reprint of the Bordoni Milanese deck fits into the question. Maybe you were just "fleshing out" some further information for me -- always welcome, of course -- but my current focus was on whether or not the Solleone Lombardy was a reprint of the original Gumppenberg/DellaRocca deck, which presently I would have to maintain it is not. The Meneghello Milanese -- I'm pretty sure I have this deck, but can't remember if I've put it into the Tarot Garden database yet, and our site seems to be offline again at the moment (I'm currently out-of-town, and have jumped online at my parents' house) -- is a completely unrelated issue for me at the moment.

I was just trying to say that in researching the Lombardo -- and please understand there is no criticism intended in this comment -- I would have simply marked it as a Solleone reproduction of the Gumppenberg deck if I had gone strictly on the information I read in this thread. Which, of course, may just go to demonstrate my imperfect understanding of the details presented here. In any case, I'm currently marking the Lombardo as being a reproduction of a completely different deck altogether -- one clearly inspired by the DellaRocca deck, and modeled very, very closely after it, but not, in fact, done by DellaRocca himself and certainly not printed by Gumppenberg. But I want to be open to corrections or the noting of "nuances" in my documentation, brief tho' it may be -- thus the reason for my post and my question. Now that I have entered the Lombardo into the Tarot Garden database, my capsulized description is available for review, although I cannot provide a link at this time since I can't get to my website to check the URL.

-- Jeannette
The Tarot Garden
 

Cerulean

Hello Jeanette, sorry for the wordiness--and my mistake.

I thought--but didn't say clearly-- that I had accepted your first premise that the Il Solleone Lombardo had a different maker than Della Rocca. I misunderstood your question and thought you weren't going to designate it as Soprafino!

My explanation was geared toward my misunderstanding. Thanks for clarifying! My apologies that I misunderstood your intent.

Cerulean
 

Jeannette

No, the lack of clarity and misunderstanding appears to have been in "my court." No need to apologize -- the whole thing still lead to a very interesting and informative discussion!

-- Jeannette
The Tarot Garden
 

Abrac

This is one of the most interesting and beautiful tarot decks I've seen.

As for the the eye and the teardrop on the collar of Justice, the truth can be painful.

Personally, I like the much-maligned dinner plate. I always thought it was a mirror, emphasizing the reflective nature of the moon.

Anyway, great thread.

fools_fool
 

Cerulean

Two more for the 'pattern'....although one is a woodcut?

These may be straying from the Soprafino Tarot pattern...or they may be a part.
I have located scans of the Lamperti (son-in-law to Della Rocca) tarots and
so am posting them...somewhere is my 22 card mignon of the Lamperti, but that's the only deck that I've seen in recent times that printed this variation...

Andy's Playing Cards (Italian regional pattern, second set of scans)

http://a_pollett.tripod.com/cards12.htm

And I'm in delightful yearning for these Lampertis, should they ever be reproduced in whole:

http://www.wopc.co.uk/italy/lamperti.html

Regards,

Cerulean
 

Pipistrelle

Based on the Marseilles?

Could someone clear up a little confusion for me please? I'm sure I'm just reading something wrong here...

I've had the LS Classic Tarot for a few months and I've just started studying it for the 78 weeks exercise. I returned to this thread to try to find out more about why certain elements were included in the cards, specifically why Il Bagatello is portrayed as a cobbler.

I had previously noted in Sandra A. Thomson's Pictures from the Heart, that:
"In the Marseilles deck, "Le Bateleur" (the baton wielder) is a working cobbler, wearing a large-brimmed hat shaped like the lemniscate."

However, Mark's very interesting explanation about the correspondences between the Marseilles/Soprafino trumps and the Hebrew alphabet appears to contradict this.

He says:
filipas said:
And the historical conundrum of the pattern is this: what, if anything, was the rationale behind the numerous innovations incorporated by Carlo Dellarocca into his "Soprafino" trumps? Many of these details appear for the first time with Dellarocca, details such as the eyes you mentioned on Trump VIII (two eyes closed and the open one upon her chest, suggesting that "blind" Justice sees with an inner, truer vision), the urn and fox on Trump X, the many items at Death's feet, the crayfish on a platter in Trump XVIII, the crossroad beneath the dancers of Il Sole, Il Matto's single bare foot, or even the portrayal of Il Bagattela as a cobbler with cobbling tools arrayed -- a portrayal not seen in previous decks.
So, as I understand it, Sandra A. Thomson explains that the cobbler portrayal is present in the Marseilles, whereas Mark suggests it appeared for the first time in the Soprafino...?

Whichever it is doesn't bother me ;) I'd just like to understand where these elements originated. Did Della Rocca reproduce these elements from the Marseilles or did he introduce them himself - as Mark suggested - to deliberately correspond to the Hebrew alphabet?

Please someone de-confuse me! :)

Pip
 

Cerulean

I thought this is a specific thread, focus on the Italian Soprafinos

of the very early 1800-90 timeframe--and I may be guessing wrong from your question. In my opinion, Mark Filipas wasn't writing generally about "Marseilles" decks. Hear me out, hopefully what I write sounds clear...

Now I've have sometimes written "Milanese or Marseilles-style" in general threads in terms of categorizing my decks that do not follow the Rider Waite Smith pattern. But here, hopefully I've been more specific in talking about Italian decks, particularly Milanese.

I don't think that Sandra A. Thompson's remarks was being specific to the Milanese patterns--I think she is writing in general. From what I gather, Mark Filipas' remarks are likely more narrow, more detailed and based on his observations of the publisher Di Gumppenberg and probably his collection of Italian historical decks.

I may be wrong, but I don't recall seeing the range of specific details of "a cobbler with his array of tools" on decks prior to the Di Gumppenberg. That was my assumption when I read the quote you posted.

I don't know if that is helpful. I seem not to be getting the same meanings from the quotes that you posted. Sorry if I added to the confusion!

Cerulean