kalliope
The title basically says it all: did HarperElixer ever sell their 3rd edition of the Wild Unknown as a stand alone deck before it was sold as a set?
Was the Wild Unknown by Harper Elixir ever sold as a stand alone?
barefootlife
1st and 2nd ed. of WU are individual decks. The 3rd ed. was always a box set. AFAIK, there are no plans to do another run of just decks without the set, but you can still find 2nd ed. sets floating around if you only want the cards.
kalliope
Thanks, barefootlife. That's what I thought, but I was out of the tarot loop for so long I just wanted someone to confirm.
Do you have any thoughts on how the 2nd and 3rd edition compare? I have the 1st and 3rd, and am just wondering if I'm missing anything by not having the 2nd.
Do you have any thoughts on how the 2nd and 3rd edition compare? I have the 1st and 3rd, and am just wondering if I'm missing anything by not having the 2nd.
barefootlife
I only own the 2nd ed. It has the same card changes that you can see between 1st and 3rd, and the cardstock isn't as good as the 1st (I hear, but I love the cardstock on the 2nd. it's thick and was initially difficult to riffle-shuffle, but it softened up enough to shuffle without warping, and has a very satisfying weight and feel.) If you're happy with the feel of your 3rd ed, I don't think there's any particular reason to seek out the 2nd, since you have the updated card illustrations.
Carojulie
Hello !
The images are the same in 2d and 3d editions as Barefootlife pointed out.
But the cardstock is different.
I find the cardstock of the 3d mass market edition very disapointing compared to the 1st 1nd 2d artist éditions.
The cardstock is much thinner, so much so that the nice sturdy box is notably shallower for the 3d edition compared to the size it was for the first two. If you put the three decks side by side on a table, you will see that the heights of the 1st and 2d edition decks are comparable, but for the 3d edition the stack of cards is much shorter, because the cards are so much thinner. And the difference in box size tells all.
Then, it depends what type of cardstock you prefer. I get that some riffler shufflers will prefer the 3d edition because the cardstock is more pliable.
For me, I prefer thick luxurious carstock, so the 3d edition feels flimsy and I do not use it, I merely keep it as a replacement should I loose a card, and for the book.
My fave is the 1st, both for the images and the splendid cardstock quality.
Second fave is the 2d, the cardstock is slightly thinner thant the 1st, but still superior quality and a true pleasure to handle.
3d edition point blank disapointed me with its thin cardstock - the special feeling that went with the two artist editions is completely lost IMO, and that's a shame. I would certainly not be as much in love as I am with this deck, if I only owned the mass market version.
If cardstock is important for you, you might want to get a 2d edition while it is still available (I would, but because I am nuts about cardstock - the feeling a decks gives me in my hands is as important as the visuals for me). And I say it again : tastes differ, some people do prefer the 3d edition carstock.....
I hope that helps !
The images are the same in 2d and 3d editions as Barefootlife pointed out.
But the cardstock is different.
I find the cardstock of the 3d mass market edition very disapointing compared to the 1st 1nd 2d artist éditions.
The cardstock is much thinner, so much so that the nice sturdy box is notably shallower for the 3d edition compared to the size it was for the first two. If you put the three decks side by side on a table, you will see that the heights of the 1st and 2d edition decks are comparable, but for the 3d edition the stack of cards is much shorter, because the cards are so much thinner. And the difference in box size tells all.
Then, it depends what type of cardstock you prefer. I get that some riffler shufflers will prefer the 3d edition because the cardstock is more pliable.
For me, I prefer thick luxurious carstock, so the 3d edition feels flimsy and I do not use it, I merely keep it as a replacement should I loose a card, and for the book.
My fave is the 1st, both for the images and the splendid cardstock quality.
Second fave is the 2d, the cardstock is slightly thinner thant the 1st, but still superior quality and a true pleasure to handle.
3d edition point blank disapointed me with its thin cardstock - the special feeling that went with the two artist editions is completely lost IMO, and that's a shame. I would certainly not be as much in love as I am with this deck, if I only owned the mass market version.
If cardstock is important for you, you might want to get a 2d edition while it is still available (I would, but because I am nuts about cardstock - the feeling a decks gives me in my hands is as important as the visuals for me). And I say it again : tastes differ, some people do prefer the 3d edition carstock.....
I hope that helps !
kalliope
barefootlife and Carojulie, thanks for your thoughts on the editions and cardstock.
I'm actually pretty happy with the cardstock on the 3rd edition. I'm one of those for whom the easier-to-handle thinner deck invites more use. But yes, the cards are very thin and flexible, so I can also see how someone wouldn't be happy with that. I do worry about how they'll age with more use.
Well, shoot. I found what I think is a 2nd edition for a good price online, so I jumped on it. It's probably overkill, but now I'll get to compare all three.
I'm actually pretty happy with the cardstock on the 3rd edition. I'm one of those for whom the easier-to-handle thinner deck invites more use. But yes, the cards are very thin and flexible, so I can also see how someone wouldn't be happy with that. I do worry about how they'll age with more use.
Well, shoot. I found what I think is a 2nd edition for a good price online, so I jumped on it. It's probably overkill, but now I'll get to compare all three.
barefootlife
And hey, if you don't love your 2nd edition enough I can think of someone willing to take it off your hands XD
kalliope
