Carla
Is it worth getting, then? I saw a youtube of it and it looked SO lush. Also, can anyone tell me what is the difference between the two decks shown here:
http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/search?searchTerm=golden+universal+tarot&search=Find+book
Golden Universal Tarot
Is it worth getting, then? I saw a youtube of it and it looked SO lush. Also, can anyone tell me what is the difference between the two decks shown here:
http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/search?searchTerm=golden+universal+tarot&search=Find+book
Le Fanu
I hadn't seen the video, thanks for that Carla.
I do think that video shows the cards off well. They look like great slabs of gold.
Notice how he talks about the missing bits of gold as giving a "hand-crafted", "manual" feel (as he shows the Cups) and he highlights the Pentacles suit. I see that the Ace of Pents is exactly like mine, missing a bit. He says in the video it is to "take away the industrial feel" like the original cards of the renaissance.
I think the overall effect is good.
I do think that video shows the cards off well. They look like great slabs of gold.
Notice how he talks about the missing bits of gold as giving a "hand-crafted", "manual" feel (as he shows the Cups) and he highlights the Pentacles suit. I see that the Ace of Pents is exactly like mine, missing a bit. He says in the video it is to "take away the industrial feel" like the original cards of the renaissance.
I think the overall effect is good.
rwcarter
From another thread, the difference is likely that one is the LoS distributed deck and the other is the Llewellyn distributed deck. Looking at the link, the lower priced one is from LoS, which makes sense as you're in Europe.
Le Fanu
I'm so lucky as my local shop sells LoS decks (and come to think of it, U.S games decks) for essentially the same price as the Book Depository. So many shops have quite a steep mark up price...
Carla
I ordered this last night but cancelled this morning. I will wait and see if a 'perfected' version ever comes out.
greatdane
Well, still like this deck, but will get the one sans the "vintage" look when it comes out. The deck is lovely, I just find the foil treatment a bit distracting, but the deck is usable.
I feel a bit like when I have seen other decks that had flaws, but were lovely decks, like the Bohemian Gothic that a bunch had the red spots. They could have just said intentional like it was splattered with blood.... The Golden Universal is great to shuffle though imo. I also like the backs and think they would look even better with a bit of gold paint added, so may be doing that
.
I feel a bit like when I have seen other decks that had flaws, but were lovely decks, like the Bohemian Gothic that a bunch had the red spots. They could have just said intentional like it was splattered with blood.... The Golden Universal is great to shuffle though imo. I also like the backs and think they would look even better with a bit of gold paint added, so may be doing that
.Tibor
I personally really hesitated to buy this one because of all the criticism about it not being 'perfect' but when I finally got hold of a copy and looked through the cards I could totally understand the 'aged' effect that they tried to achieve. For me the parts where the gold foil was left off do not look like flaws but more like an intentionally created ageing effect. It works really well IMO. I now think that even when the 'perfect' version comes out I will still prefer this one.
greatdane
well here's what I didn't get, Tibor
If something is "aged", it isn't like all the majors and most of two suits would be perfect, and then two suits look like it's wearing off. Aging doesn't happen like that. After seeing PERFECT and brand new looking majors and then two suits that look like it was just done for shading, THEN the pents, it was like ok, what are they really going for here? I DO still really like this deck, I would just rather the vintage have been pulled off better and when I emd LoS, I was told they hadn't quite achieved the look they were going for and a new edition would be coming out. But I still can read with it, it's not terribly bothersome, just think could have been done better and LoS said the same thing. I DO love the gold dotted background on all the cards though! And I think the majors are superb.
If something is "aged", it isn't like all the majors and most of two suits would be perfect, and then two suits look like it's wearing off. Aging doesn't happen like that. After seeing PERFECT and brand new looking majors and then two suits that look like it was just done for shading, THEN the pents, it was like ok, what are they really going for here? I DO still really like this deck, I would just rather the vintage have been pulled off better and when I emd LoS, I was told they hadn't quite achieved the look they were going for and a new edition would be coming out. But I still can read with it, it's not terribly bothersome, just think could have been done better and LoS said the same thing. I DO love the gold dotted background on all the cards though! And I think the majors are superb.
sparkles
oh gawd i think i've just been enabled!!!!!
some threads really need to come with a warning in the title bar
some threads really need to come with a warning in the title bar
Tibor
Dear GreatDane
I see the ageing effect in the Pentacles and Cups in terms of the actually physical objects aged (e.g.on the ace of pentacles that actual big pentacle has aged). I know it sounds strange but my brain can totally process it in this way. Once again,(just to clarify) I personally see those particular objects on the cards (the actual cups and coins) aged rather than the card stock or the whole deck aged. That also explains why the majors are 'intact'. I know it may sound strange and I'm not sure that this is how Lo Scarabeo intended it to be viewed as well but for me it totally works.
I see the ageing effect in the Pentacles and Cups in terms of the actually physical objects aged (e.g.on the ace of pentacles that actual big pentacle has aged). I know it sounds strange but my brain can totally process it in this way. Once again,(just to clarify) I personally see those particular objects on the cards (the actual cups and coins) aged rather than the card stock or the whole deck aged. That also explains why the majors are 'intact'. I know it may sound strange and I'm not sure that this is how Lo Scarabeo intended it to be viewed as well but for me it totally works.
