Tarot Classic: Why does Kaplan say it's by Burdel?

Does anyone know why this deck is misidentified by its publisher? On the box for the Tarot Classic deck, and also in the Tarot Classic book, Kaplan identifies it as based on a deck by Claude Burdel. But Kaplan shows some of the actual Burdel cards in the book, and anyone can see they are quite different from the Tarot Classic cards, and in fact are different from the Tarot Classic images shown in the divinatory meanings section of the very same book. The Tarot Classic deck is, as jmd has pointed out, based on a Schaffhouse deck, as can clearly proclaimed on the 2 of Coins. The Burdel 2 of Coins has Burdel's name instead.

In the book Kaplan says that the Burdel cards have been supposedly modified by the artists at Mueller & Cie. Perhaps those artists used the Schaffhouse instead of the Burdel, and Kaplan thought they were using the Burdel when he had the book and the deck box printed? One would think he would have corrected the error, what with all the subsequent printings.

The Claude Burdel deck was the basis for Lo Scarabeo's Tarot de Marseille deck. In comparing the Burdel to the Conver, the Burdel can be classified as a true Marseille deck as the Majors are very similar to the Conver, although there are some differences in the designs on the pip cards. The Tarot Classic/Schaffhouse is more of a variant.

You can see the difference between the two decks here:

Tarot Classic/Schaffhouse:

http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/tarot-classic/

Burdel:

http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/burdel-marseilles/

(On the Burdel deck, on the 2 of Coins, Lo Scarabeo has replaced Burdel's name on the banner with their own.)

-- Lee

I know it's an old thread, but could anyone shed any light on this?

I have both the LS Burdel and Tarot Classic, and as Lee points out they are totally different. I'd really like to know is what deck the Tarot Classic is actually based on (and the true dating of this deck).

Hi, Teomat,

teomat said:

I have both the LS Burdel and Tarot Classic, and as Lee points out they are totally different. I'd really like to know is what deck the Tarot Classic is actually based on (and the true dating of this deck).

Click to expand...

First, let me say that I don't really know. However... the Tarot Classic box (at least the one I have) says that it derived from an 18th C. deck by Claude Burdel. This info is apparently incorrect. The Claude Burdel 1751 deck is pictured in Kaplan's Encyclopedia, v.II, pg. 328. The apparent mistake was not merely on the deck's box, but also in v.I. of Kaplan's Encyclopedia. On page 242, the caption to the Tarot Classic illustrations says that the deck was based on the 1751 Burdel deck. Only parts of it were -- maybe.

There are some distinctive elements of Burdel's suit cards, some of which seem to have served as model, (directly or indirectly), for the Tarot Classic deck. On page 184 of v.II, Kaplan writes of the suit of Swords in Burdel, "the ends alternate between flat widened tips and ornate hilts with sword guard and pommel." In other words, 1) the swords have handles, and 2) one sword is pointed up and the next down. This is in contrast to the general TdM style swords, with no real handle or hilt shown, and the same flattened design appearing at both ends of the "swords".

But the Burdel Trumps are different, in many details, from the Tarot Classic Trumps. The Hanged Man in particular is quite distinctive, and other cards are also identifiable because of their significant variation from the majority of TdM decks. The Tarot Classic Trumps seem to derive from a deck by Gassmann, circa 1873, created in Geneva, Switzerland. It is illustrated in Kaplan's Encyclopedia, v.I, pg.163. In all the details in which Tarot Classic differs from Burdel, it matches Gassmann.

Unfortunately, Kaplan didn't illustrate any of the Swords from the Gassmann deck, so it's hard to tell if Tarot Classic got the variant suit designs directly from Burdel's 18th C. deck, or indirectly via Gassmann's 19th C. deck. (Gassmann may have copied the variations of Burdel.) However, Kaplan did illustrate the Roy de Denier from both Burdel and Gassmann, and not surprisingly, the Tarot Classic matches the latter. So it looks like the entire Tarot Classic deck was probably based on the 1873 Gassmann deck rather than the 1751 Burdel deck.

So, based on Kaplan's Encyclopedia, I'd say that Tarot Classic appears to be a based on Gassmann's 19th C. deck. At least, that's what I wrote to TarotL back in 2001. Someone else might expand on that. I see that Jean-Michel has referred to the design as being from Schaffhausen, Switzerland. He may know more about it.

Tarot Classic Question (Nov. 5, 2001)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TarotL/message/17882

Best regards,
Michael

Hi all,

you beat me to it Michael!

Here's a colour version of an 1840 Gassmann, Geneva -



This is from Schweitzer Spielkarten 2: Das Tarockspiel in der Schweiz, no. 9 (p. 135). The other page gives the court cards, Ace of Batons, Ace of Swords, 4 of Deniers and 2 of Deniers.

Ross

I think this might actually be it -



From the Christie's auction catalogue "Historic Cards and Games: The Stuart and Marilyn Kaplan Collection: Wednesday 21 June 2006" p. 27 (no. 31)

(the lines of the "Classic" and this Schaffhouse seem to be exactly the same, the colors are changed; there is an "M" in the 4 of Deniers (not "Coupe" as they have it in the catalogue), which might stand for Marilyn, I guess)

Ross

Burdel via Gassmann via Schaffhausen to "Classic"

The Gassman is probably drawn from the earlier Burdel. (With some notable artistic license...)
Note that both are from the same geographic neighborhood.

Sorry I don't have the Schaffhausen to compare, but I imagine it is in turn derived from the Gassmann.

I suppose one can claim that the "Tarot Classic" is sort of loosely and indirectly derived from the Burdel.

On the LEFT:
Claude Burdel, Fribourg, 1751
On the RIGHT:
Gassmann, Geneva, ca 1870.

Hi, Ross, OnePotato,

OnePotato said:

The Gassman is probably drawn from the earlier Burdel. (With some notable artistic license...)
Note that both are from the same geographic neighborhood. Sorry I don't have the Schaffhausen to compare, but I imagine it is in turn derived from the Gassmann.

I suppose one can claim that the "Tarot Classic" is sort of loosely and indirectly derived from the Burdel.

Click to expand...

LOL -- that was my cavalier suggestion six years ago, but I didn't feel too good about it. Now, however, given your pics, it seems pretty reasonable. Thanks for the pics.

Moving on... since so many people have such great images, or know where they can be found online, can anyone point me to a nice (relatively early) example of a Trappola deck? I found some links in earlier threads, but they didn't work. I checked out the Russian Joker site's Trappola decks, but was pretty disappointed. There are some examples on the IPCS Pattern Sheets site, (patterns #40-43) but I'd like to see a complete deck, preferably the Viennese family (pattern #41).

Pattern Sheets
http://i-p-c-s.org/pattern/index.html

Any suggestions?

Best regards,
Michael

Good God, the man owns both a Gassman and a Burdel.

And a scanner.

Lucky him, lucky us!

OnePotato said:

The Gassman is probably drawn from the earlier Burdel. (With some notable artistic license...)
Note that both are from the same geographic neighborhood.

Sorry I don't have the Schaffhausen to compare, but I imagine it is in turn derived from the Gassmann.

I suppose one can claim that the "Tarot Classic" is sort of loosely and indirectly derived from the Burdel.

On the LEFT:
Claude Burdel, Fribourg, 1751
On the RIGHT:
Gassmann, Geneva, ca 1870.

Click to expand...

Hi all,

OnePotato said:

Sorry I don't have the Schaffhausen to compare, but I imagine it is in turn derived from the Gassmann.

I suppose one can claim that the "Tarot Classic" is sort of loosely and indirectly derived from the Burdel.

Click to expand...

I thought it would be clear that the Tarot Classic was *directly* copied, line for line, from the Schaffhouse, but maybe the picture from Kaplan's auction catalogue was too small -













Sorry for the quality of the Schaffhouse, but the catalogue pictures are only about 3cm high, so the dot-pattern comes out pretty quickly at high magnification.

Line for line they are identical, but the colors are changed. The 2 of Deniers says it all, I think. The only significant difference I can find is the "IIII" on the 4 of Deniers in the Tarot Classic, which isn't present in the Kaplan 1905 Schaffhouse.

Ross

Yes, and we can see that the Schaffhouse appears to be derived from the Gassmann, and Gassmann from Burdel.

...And so this is how we presume the connection to the Burdel, as is claimed.
It may be three degrees of separation, but if one wanted to claim a deck had some tradition, one could make (at least some kind of) a case for the 18th century basis.