Conver reconstructions

Barleywine

My favorite Conver reconstruction is the ISIS version.

I like the ISIS too, but don't have it. Is this the one that some people disliked because the eyes have been made too "expressive" or was that the CBD? Seems like a minor complaint to me.
 

Michellehihi

I have some TdM restaurations or reconstructions as you call it, but I don't really like to read with them. I had the ISIS and sold it. I had the Jodorowsky and traded it. I had the Grimaud and gifted it.
If I am going to read with a Marseille, I want it to look like the real thing. So I very much prefer the reproductions, meaning the cards are exactly like they were centuries ago. Yves Reynaud of tarot heritage excels at this. He's simply the best. Yesterday I was comparing my Madenie to the LoScarabeo Ancient tarot de Marseille (which is gorgeous when it's by itself). And I realised how superior Yves' Madenie is: the purity of the lines, the crispness (is this a word in English), the cardstock. Every TdM lover needs to have one of Yves' reproduction.
 

Lee

I like the ISIS too, but don't have it. Is this the one that some people disliked because the eyes have been made too "expressive" or was that the CBD? Seems like a minor complaint to me.
I believe, when these decks came out, some people noted that the faces on the CBD had been made somewhat friendlier. For the ISIS, the people as a whole have been made more three-dimensional, with more realistic shadowing and shading, and the eyes (in what to me is a remarkable effect) look very realistic, almost like glass eyes in dolls.

You can get a good look at some of the ISIS images at the Fools' Dog page for the deck:

http://www.foolsdog.com/ISIS/

If you click on the card images they get nice and big.
 

Lee

If I am going to read with a Marseille, I want it to look like the real thing. So I very much prefer the reproductions, meaning the cards are exactly like they were centuries ago.
Interestingly, I'm the opposite. I become distracted by the bleeding and murky colors of reproductions and much prefer reading with decks that have been, shall we say, deconstructed, and show the images in a Platonically ideal state with sharp, strong lines and colors that stay within the lines.
 

Michellehihi

Interestingly, I'm the opposite. I become distracted by the bleeding and murky colors of reproductions and much prefer reading with decks that have been, shall we say, deconstructed, and show the images in a Platonically ideal state with sharp, strong lines and colors that stay within the lines.

Interesting. I think I know why I don't like redrawn decks. The faces are so nice, so modern, and then the rest of the image is so old fashioned, the costumes, the chairs, the crowns, hats and helmets, the ISIS being the clearest example of that. It just doesn't fit for me. It reminds me of those photographers in circus or other public markets that let you wear old dresses and take your picture. You always look stupid in those pictures.
 

Richard

I like the ISIS too, but don't have it. Is this the one that some people disliked because the eyes have been made too "expressive" or was that the CBD? Seems like a minor complaint to me.

With the ISIS it's the eyes; with the CBD it's the mouths.
 

Richard

The Pierre Madenié 1709 was 'cleaned up' a bit. It was a collaborative project with the graohic artist Wilfried Houdouin. I like the deck very much!

However, while facsimiles are of scholarly interest, for practical use I prefer restored decks. I don't see how the use of facsimiles for divination is enhanced by the fact that they were produced originally using primitive printing methods of woodcuts and stencils. I am fairly certain that the authors of the historic decks would have taken advantage of modern printing had it been available.
 

Michellehihi

The Pierre Madenié 1709 was 'cleaned up' a bit. It was a collaborative project with the graohic artist Wilfried Houdouin. I like the deck very much!

However, while facsimiles are of scholarly interest, for practical use I prefer restored decks. I don't see how the use of facsimiles for divination is enhanced by the fact that they were produced originally using primitive printing methods of woodcuts and stencils. I am fairly certain that the authors of the historic decks would have taken advantage of modern printing had it been available.

The 2016 version was "cleaned up". I have the previous (now OOP) version which was not.
 

Lee

However, while facsimiles are of scholarly interest, for practical use I prefer restored decks. I don't see how the use of facsimiles for divination is enhanced by the fact that they were produced originally using primitive printing methods of woodcuts and stencils. I am fairly certain that the authors of the historic decks would have taken advantage of modern printing had it been available.
Exactly. Also, my understanding is that a lot of the bleeding that we see in facsimile decks wasn't there when the decks were first printed, but rather is simply a function of time -- over the centuries, the dye/ink is slowly absorbed by the paper in the areas surrounding what was intended to be the color area. Or something like that.
 

Barleywine

Exactly. Also, my understanding is that a lot of the bleeding that we see in facsimile decks wasn't there when the decks were first printed, but rather is simply a function of time -- over the centuries, the dye/ink is slowly absorbed by the paper in the areas surrounding what was intended to be the color area. Or something like that.

Seems right. There were no acid-free, archival-quality papers in those days.