Medieval Scapini arrived today

Greetings Folks,

Medieval Scapini arrived today. It is new, but printed in Switzerland. What cool colours and detail, this deck does not look muddy at all. I wanted it for years, but could never afford it.

People say this deck is not in sync with Rider Waite meanings, but I've found that to be untrue. The pictures painted on the pip cards make them easy to read. I like the artwork on this one much better than Rider Waite (no offence, but I'm so tired of looking at it). I think I've found that special deck that I've been looking for. These are classy cards, but cheeky and down to earth at the same time.


Anyone here like or use this deck?


freddie

I also have the Medieval Scapini and just love it ! I haven't worked with it extensively yet but I do often look at all the images and agree that the artwork is fun and colorful. There is so much in these cards to discover.

Enjoy it Freddie !

I just can´t even remotely see the vaguest hint of RWS in this deck. Lots of climbing gnomes and stuff, but RWS?

Does yours have a little "window" in the box? If it doesn´t, then you´ve got the muddy version. One thing I will say in it´s favour, the gold has this gorgous, muted, mottled tone...

Great deck... weird companion book that has little to do with it specifically.

The thing to know is that Scapini DIDN'T create a RWS clone, but then Decker's companion book, which is actually great as a quickie history of Tarot and themes, treats its LWB meaning sections AS IF the deck is a RWS clone and pointedly misreads the symbolism (witness the great Penitents/KKK cockup which flares in threads now and again). Almost as if the companion was written without bothering to see or learn what the artist had painted. The first time I read it, I had the dsistinct impression that the meaty first section on history and divination had been written prior, and then rewritten and meanings tacked on so it could be packaged to accompany the Medieval Scapini.

Bizarre.

Still, the first half is a great little book in some ways, but the provided meanings? Not so much...

Freddie said:

this deck does not look muddy at all.

Anyone here like or use this deck?

Click to expand...

<grin> I like or use the deck. I originally bought it because I'm collecting decks where Scapini had any input.

By "muddy" I think what people are referring to is that areas of the images, particularly Majors and courts, which possibly in the original artwork were gold-leaf or gilt, are reproduced in the deck in mere printer's inke, usually brown with orange highlights, and the silver banding through it again with grey printer's ink. I *was* and am extremely disappointed with that, especially as after getting that deck I started getting gold-stamped decks: the Klimpt, Botticelli and Visconti, and wonder why the h*ll the Del Negro publishing company were so cheap as to not go the same way.

But I'll agree with you - the Majors are very workable, the Courts have a charm of their own and the pips, although spare, are enjoyable and easy to read. If I don't have an actual gold-stamped deck on the table to compete with it, it has quite a lot of client-appeal.

At the moment it's on holidays, in the huge wicker basket where they all "sleep" between periods of activity, but it will come out again soon.

A lot of people are prejudiced against its artist, Luigi Scapini. I saw images of his Stained Glass Tarot several years ago, and it took me a lo-o-ong time to discover the Tarotgarden (and a very short time afterwards to buy the deck). Since getting that deck, I decided to invest in most of his decks, and I'm well on the way, with several in my greedy claws.

Although all of them except the Cary-Yale Visconti are published by the same company (dal Negro), they are on widely differing cardstock - the lukumi being on linen stock, something I;ve never seen in a Tarot card before. Scapini seems to regard his different decks as different worlds, and his artistic style as well as the theme of the deck is entirely different in each one, which is something I have to respect. I likwe all of hte decks he has produced although they all have their strengths and weaknesses, and yes, I like this one. I *was* terribly disappointed by the brown-ink portrayal of gold, though.

I just got in my Medieval Scapini today as well. I think its gorgeous and look forward to getting to know it better. My deck was published by US Games in 2005.

When did the Del Negro version come out? Are they very different?

Hi,

The box has a sqaure hole cut into front of it and all the packaging and cards read US Games 1984. Oddly enough it is a new set. It has no title card and had been removed from its' plastic. very thin, but durable cardstock...lots of depth to the pictures. The printing on these cards looks 3d. Some of the cards do have small pictures of the Rider Waite cards. I say if you can read Rider waite, you'll have no trouble with this one.

It's kind of Visconti / Wirth gone Rider Waite style.

I'm very impressed with it.


Freddie

Nisaba, the muddiness isn't the coloration--that's not the complaint. Some of these decks have a very bad printing job--actually blurry. I liked the colors just fine!

eta: You can get the feeling of the "muddy" vs. "clean" images by comparing these two sets of scans. I had the second type--terrible.

http://www.tarotgarden.com/database/images/m-decks/medievalscapinicards.gif

http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/medieval-scapini/

Debra said:

Nisaba, the muddiness isn't the coloration--that's not the complaint. Some of these decks have a very bad printing job--actually blurry. I liked the colors just fine!

Click to expand...

Oh okay, no, mine isn't blurry at all. Nice and sharp. In the months I;'ve had it, though, the *yellow* cardstock HAS curled, though. A lot. Every time I take it out, I bend it several times against the curl. (I have a few decks I do that yo).

Debra said:

Nisaba, the muddiness isn't the coloration--that's not the complaint. Some of these decks have a very bad printing job--actually blurry. I liked the colors just fine!

eta: You can get the feeling of the "muddy" vs. "clean" images by comparing these two sets of scans. I had the second type--terrible.

http://www.tarotgarden.com/database/images/m-decks/medievalscapinicards.gif

http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/medieval-scapini/

Click to expand...

I think I have the muddy deck and that's why I just really can't work it. I've shuffled it a few times, tried to go through the deck and look at individual cards, but it just doesn't resonate with me.