Golden tarot vs Touchstone tarot

cfish

I am thinking of purchasing my third tarot deck, and I am debating between these two decks.
I know both are same artist's creation and Touchstone was made later.
First I leanded toward Golden Tarot, but some cards of the deck-like the Star and the Wheel of fortune didn't resonate me much.
I am also curious about 'tone' of the deck. For example, I feel my mystical cat tarot deck is very lighthearted while RWS is much more straight and sometimes startles me.
Has anyone used one of two decks or both?
I'd like to hear if you have any experience.
Thank you!
 

Padma

I have both decks - love them both :)

The Golden very much has a gentle feel of history echoing through your hands, and I treat it in an almost reverential fashion. Feels like going to Tarot church, haha! Perfect classic deck, and features my favorite 5 of Cups card - awesome in rich compassion.

Touchstone - perfect deck for exploring people's motives and the psychology of the people and situations you are in. All the cards are people who stare directly out at you - and so you meet and see the people you are dealing with.

I would get both :) Touchstone is now out of publication (OOP) but, you can still buy the mass market version at tarot garden :)

http://www.tarotgarden.com/boutique...Touchstone+Tarot+(Kunati+Edition)&pageenter=0
 

RiverRunsDeep

This is a difficult decision. I own both and, if you are able, I would
say.....get both! Each of them is beautiful, elegant, and perfectly
readable.

I guess it depends on your personal preferences. I find the Golden
to be more slick and glossy, while Touchstone is more matte and
opaque. The Golden is more rectangular, which I find easier to shuffle,
while Touchstone seems more square-ish and awkward to shuffle. Golden
has more scenic depictions, while Touchstone has more portrait-style
artwork.

As for "tone", I have found the Golden to be more down to earth in a
RWS-ish kind of way. Touchstone is also RWS based, yet I find it to have
a greater sense of history and mystery to it. If I absolutely HAD to choose
between these two decks, I would pick the Touchstone. To me, it is like the
elder, more elegant sister of the two.

Of course, this is all totally subjective. :)
 

Padma

hmmm - have to agree with River RD here. If I was only getting the one deck, it would be the Touchstone...

...But PS, get both! :laugh: you won't regret it.
 

Nemia

I have both, too, and I agree that you should buy both ;-)

The Touchstone has much more well-known art. Most people know little Early Renaissance art, like used in the Golden, but the artists in the Touchstone (Rubens, Holbein, Giorgione, Bronzino, Caravaggio, Titian...) are very famous. I find Kat Black did a great job and the knowledge of the original doesn't interfere in this deck, the way it did for me in the Art of Life tarot and sometimes even in the Botticelli, but others may be irritated. So the Golden is a safer bet if you don't want to see the image "fall apart" because you recognize each of the persons and from which paintings they were taken.

The Golden follows the visual formula of the RWS closely; in the Sun for my taste too closely. The Golden gives you full scenes, the Touchstone gives you close-ups of faces. In the language of art history, the Golden shows genre paintings, the Touchstone portraits. The Golden gives you scenes to read and interpret, the Touchstone gives you facial expressions.

The Golden is lighter in colour and cooler; the Touchstone has a lot of brown. Early Renaissance art is much flatter and figures are organized on a frieze or stage, very much like the RWS. Late Renaissance, Mannerism and Baroque art plays with depth, strong contrasts of light and shadow, and more saturated colours. You might find yourself preferring one over the other (I don't, I find each visual language interesting).

Kat Black did a very good job in blending the images, but sometimes you can see "seams". You can see that the Touchstone is her second deck: it's IMO more skillfully done, with more attention to light and shadow (if you don't have a common light source, your eye will notice there's something "wrong" even if you couldn't identify what's making you doubt the integrity of the picture) and with a stronger colour scheme. Cups give you blue, Wands red etc - strong patches of nearly undiluted colour that unite a suit visually.

But the cooler, more distant and less identifiable suit-oriented coloring of the Golden is lovely, too.

No, I can't decide, and I wouldn't wish to be without either. I use the Touchstone more often but love the Golden very much, too.

You'll be able to read each of them out of the box. They're a pleasure to behold. They come in beautiful, solid boxes. The booklets are well done. These are tarot decks that are meant for tarot readers, not for art collectors, in spite of their art origins. And they make you feel special, well, at least me. There's a strong positive energy in Kat Black's work, a Queen/Wands energy, something that inspires good readings.

That's my completely subjective point of view.

ETA: Golden Tarot is Florence and Flanders - Touchstone is Venice and Fontainebleau. How can you choose?
 

Padma

ETA: Golden Tarot is Florence and Flanders - Touchstone is Venice and Fontainebleau. How can you choose?

Wow. Nemia, everything you said was awesome, but this bit was awesome-est :D
 

nisaba

I have the Touchstone. It's very ... brown. (A dominant colour is important to note, in case it is a colour that makes someone feel uncomfortable).

I keep feeling I've seen most of those faces before, which if they are famous paintings, I probably have.
 

FLizarraga

This is definitely a threat to savor.

IMHO, they are apples and oranges. Very different decks. And very beautiful, very strong decks. So it's very hard for me to see this as an either/or choice.

Yes, the Touchstone is very BROWN, and very much about faces and psychology. Yes, the Golden is very... well, GOLDEN, and yet cooler.

I agree with practically everything Nemia says (heck, I agree with practically everything EVERYBODY says), except the "seams" part. I find that the flat, more stilted Gothic and early Renaissance art of the Golden is a lot more forgiving to digital collage than the realistic art of the Touchstone. The sometimes awkward proportions/contortions and the conflicting light sources in the Touchstone are VERY distracting for me. But again, that's just the way I see it --literally.

Personally, I don't mind recognizing the sources in the Touchstone, because in most cases it adds to the card meaning. Not so in the Botticelli, which annoys me to no end -- the Virgen of the Magnificat is in like four different cards! Why oh WHY?

The Golden was one of my first decks, and it's probably the one dearest to my heart. I know it like the palm of my hand. But the Touchstone, peeves aside, is a very well done, very special deck, with its earth tones and its expressive faces; less showy and more nuanced. I have and enjoy both.
 

FLizarraga

Well spotted, hahaha! :laugh:

That's a peculiar typo, though. What does it mean? A thread that feels like a threat? A treat of a thread? A threat of a tread? Where angles fear to threat? Trick or thread? :bugeyed:

P.S. And I did it again! Angels? Angles? Angst?????