ficbot
This is the one the bookstore had...
Lleweyn vs Sharman-Casseli
This is the one the bookstore had...
daenys
I own the Sharman-Caselli deck only.
At first glance the Llewellyn Classic tarot is colourful and yet... stiff. The Fool's shoulders are hunched with tension, and the Knight of Wands has no momentum. Here is a picture album for comparison (with an extra Page of Wands):
http://imgur.com/a/7aHR2
From my clearly unbiased perspective, I will say I much prefer the Sharman-Caselli for its natural body language. And the facial expressions! You can't see it in the scan, but the Knight of Wands has the most infectiously energetic grin on a tarot card I've ever seen. (The court cards in general are fantastic.) I've picked three more energetic cards to compare; that's not to say Caselli doesn't illustrate melancholy quite evocatively too. It's never theatrical.
Regarding the same deck, you might not like the spartanness of some Majors. For example, the Wheel of Fortune has had its esoteric symbols removed:
http://i.imgur.com/bNv1DC4.jpg
Some others are gorgeous though.
http://i.imgur.com/jeDMKfB.jpg
And yes, the Wands are very yellow. You get used to it quickly.
Hope that helps!
At first glance the Llewellyn Classic tarot is colourful and yet... stiff. The Fool's shoulders are hunched with tension, and the Knight of Wands has no momentum. Here is a picture album for comparison (with an extra Page of Wands):
http://imgur.com/a/7aHR2
From my clearly unbiased perspective, I will say I much prefer the Sharman-Caselli for its natural body language. And the facial expressions! You can't see it in the scan, but the Knight of Wands has the most infectiously energetic grin on a tarot card I've ever seen. (The court cards in general are fantastic.) I've picked three more energetic cards to compare; that's not to say Caselli doesn't illustrate melancholy quite evocatively too. It's never theatrical.
Regarding the same deck, you might not like the spartanness of some Majors. For example, the Wheel of Fortune has had its esoteric symbols removed:
http://i.imgur.com/bNv1DC4.jpg
Some others are gorgeous though.
http://i.imgur.com/jeDMKfB.jpg
And yes, the Wands are very yellow. You get used to it quickly.
Hope that helps!
JankaV
I didn't like the Sharman's card stock. It felt cheap...so there's that. Everyone is different but I feel like the feeling in my hands is important. I'm not sure about the Lleweyn.
Telspepper
The Llewellyn Classic are thicker and matte. They feel nice in the hand and do not slide.
I've not noticed any hunchness to the figures. As for The Fool it seems just a different pose and clothing, his posture is not in an open stride but I don't get tension from him, its more non focus or in sort of inward focus. Like when you are walking and oblivious, just in the moment.
The knight of wands is not galloping but in the RWS he is not either.
Many of the figures in this deck are in motion, ie the Hermit, which gives a positive feel and energy to this deck. It doesn't feel stagnant or posed. The vibrant colouring adds to this feeling.
I've not noticed any hunchness to the figures. As for The Fool it seems just a different pose and clothing, his posture is not in an open stride but I don't get tension from him, its more non focus or in sort of inward focus. Like when you are walking and oblivious, just in the moment.
The knight of wands is not galloping but in the RWS he is not either.
Many of the figures in this deck are in motion, ie the Hermit, which gives a positive feel and energy to this deck. It doesn't feel stagnant or posed. The vibrant colouring adds to this feeling.
daenys
Fair enough. What I dislike about the Knight of Wands isn't that he's not galloping (I know what the PCS version looks like), it's that the horse looks like it is standing instead of rearing up with yet-to-be-released energy.
It's interesting that you mention the Hermit, because from what I've seen the Llewellyn Classic version has such a bold, assertive, outward energy that I feel like it's unrecognisable from the RWS counterpart except for his costume. This card is one where the Sharman-Caselli and RWS are almost the same.
I will note that although I'm relatively new to tarot and am not qualified to critique a deck for its symbols or accuracy, I try to keep my criticisms outside of those areas, and to only those I think are important. Human body language I think is fair game.
It's also possible that I'm wrongly assuming the five or so Llewellyn cards I've examined are representative of the whole deck.
I concur with the reports that the Sharman-Caselli card stock is poor. I have two copies. Book Depository sent me the St Martins Press version instead of the US Games edition I ordered... twice in a row. [emoji23]
Cesar
I own both decks, the Llewellyn Classic Tarot and the Sharman-Caselli deck. I think that they have only in common the fact that they are RWS clones. As a matter of fact, I bought the two of them because I have been looking for a deck in the tradition of the RWS but with more vivid colors and a little bit more friendly to my clients. But, after all, I always keep my RWS as my Tarot for actual reading, because the new ones never reach the highness of the original one (I'm using the PCS Commemorative Deck). Choosing between the two decks, I would prefer much better the Llewellyn, but the card stock makes it actually imposible to use this deck in readings. Too bad because it is a very beautiful artwork.
daenys
Why is that? (both the card stock and your preference)
INIVEA
LMS Card Stock
I just wanted to add, That the card stock of the LMS Deck is just fine, what I have already noticed which is an improvement, is that it doesn't warp on diagonal corners, like most of Llewellyn's decks do. The cards are nice to shuffle, not so slippery you end up with a handful of jumper cards Yeah okay the card stock isn't as good as US games for thickness, they are a tiny bit thinner, not so thin that they are flimsy.
I honestly enjoy shuffling the LMS deck, it's that nice smoother flow feel as the cards move between your hands.
I just wanted to add, That the card stock of the LMS Deck is just fine, what I have already noticed which is an improvement, is that it doesn't warp on diagonal corners, like most of Llewellyn's decks do. The cards are nice to shuffle, not so slippery you end up with a handful of jumper cards
Yeah okay the card stock isn't as good as US games for thickness, they are a tiny bit thinner, not so thin that they are flimsy.I honestly enjoy shuffling the LMS deck, it's that nice smoother flow feel as the cards move between your hands.
Cesar
About the card stock, I think that the problem of the Llewellyn Classic Deck is not about how thick or thin it is, but rather about its quality. It's very fragile according to my own experience. It certainly shuffles well, but it is not a deck meant for much use. I would love to have the same deck in a much better cardstock as the one of the PCS Commemorative set or the ISIS Marseille's, which would be just perfect for me.
As to my preference, I think that my inclination for the Llewellyn is explained by its vivid colors and the general feeling it delivers to me. In any case, my choice is not a statement about the quality of either of them but a consequence of my personal taste.
I have both decks and I certainly will keep the two because I consider they are good tools for study and learning.
