The Pamela Colman Smith Centennial Deck review thread

coredil

Just received the set and ... already a little bit disapointed :(

As there are already quite a lot of positive feedback, I thought I could add some less positiv comments.

Set :thumbsup:
It is really a lot of stuff for this price: 2 books, one full of wonderfull pictures of Pamelas art, and even if the books cover is not very well bounded, the pages are well bounded and the pictures are very well printed.
The box containing the set is incredibly well made and even the additional pieces inside the box placed to hold the deck are made of real cardboard, no plastic!
To me the big box alone is worth the price ;)

Colors :(
But the colors of the deck!
I would almost call it: the Greeny RWS!
All the cards with a yellow background have a kind of yellow-olive-greenish shade, and the other cards have a grey-brown-dirty shade!
To my taste it is too much artificial aging (if this was the aim of this coloring)
Though the Original Rider also has some overall color shade it looks like a paradise bird with brilliant colors compared to the centennial set :)

I compared the colors to my Pam D, which is I believe the Pam with the badest color.
And go figure, even the Pam D is a little bit lighter!
And when I compare it to my Pam C, then the Pam C has really much brighter and clear colors and it shines!

To be fair, this deck is probably nearer than others to the overall look of an original Pam deck, but the contrast of the pictures suffers a lot, and the overall in my opinion too dark shade ist certainly not to the taste of everyone.

printing :mad:
In the copy I got, 35 cards (almost all majors) are completely out of center resulting in a thin white border on the left and a large white border on the right.
The US Games copyright is MUCH BIGGER than the one on the Original Rider (fortunately I do not have any yellow box RWS with copyright but only without copyright, so I dont know how big the copyright is on the yellow box)

This copyright adds nothing, absolutely nothing to Pamelas art!

Cardstock :grin:
Someone mentioned that the cardstock would be similar to the Yellow box RWS made in Switzerland!
In no way!
The cardstock of the centennial has absolutely nothing to do with the smooth and almost organic feeling of the Müller cardstock.
The cardstock is indeed thick but I dont like it very much.
It does not feel to me like paper but rather like plastic, it is also quite stiff and the edges are so sharp that you could almost cut yourself if you are not carefull!
But the fact that it is very thick is to me a very positiv thing.

Finish :)
I find the finish OK and not too glossy, but it has again absolutely nothing to do with the nice waxy finish of the Müller printing.

Line Drawing :confused:
I am perplex about the lineart of the drawings.
Though I am aware that some pictures of Pamela have thick line drawings and other a thin line drawing, I have an undefinable feeling as if some cards are much less defined than others.

Conclusion:|
Well not much positive feedback, sorry.
I love the big box, I thought I could use it for my Pam D, but the Pam D is thicker.
The Pam C fits well in the box, but it already has a box :joke:

Joke aside, I really think you get a lot for a very fair price.
Everything is really well done.
But it simply cannot suit each taste, and even less the suit of some fanatical collectors :rolleyes:

Best regards
 

Manda

I love everything about this set, so much that I don't even care if it is a marketing ploy.
 

starlightexp

etherial dreams said:
how is its lamination in comparison the the Original Rider waite? more/ less or the same? The lamination of the original rider waite is a bit too much for me but having said that even if it is heavily laminated I will still get is as I want a nice rider waite deck to read with and the ORW isn't doing it to me, yet I like its more mysterious tone in comparison to the Radiant or the Universal.

Much less. The cards themselves are very well made. They are a good thickness and the lamination is now where near the gloss that is on the ORWS


As for the boook, yea I think because it looks like the binding is sewen that the pages won't fall out, but the cover has to kinda of be handled with care as to not cause deep creasing. I do think the book will hold up over time but for book collectors like me I can see where they could look pretty rough pretty easy.
 

fferyllt

My set came yesterday. I really like the cards, more than I expected. One thing about them that really struck me was how the coloring of the deck makes the images look more dimensional than the standard US Games RW deck -- rather than flat areas of bright color, there is more contrast and texture. Have to agree with coredil, though, the cardstock is too stiff.

And the book about Pixie with all of the wonderful color pictures of her artwork is worth it all by itself.

But I was flipping through the Pictorial Key to the Tarot. There are no drawings of the cards! It's not Pictorial, but just a Key to the Tarot. I'm disappointed over that, as I like having the pictures in the book, and given the title, I was expecting them to be there.
 

Le Fanu

starlightexp said:
Much less. The cards themselves are very well made. They are a good thickness and the lamination is no where near the gloss that is on the ORWS

Remember that people have different levels of glossiness with the ORWS. If you have an older pressing, as I do, the finish is gentle and slightly waxy. very nice to shuffle. But if people are saying that it is nothing like the glossiness of the ORWS, maybe it's because they have a Printed in Italy version. It isn't that helpful to compare it to the ORWS because of this reason. The AG Muller printings, however, are rather more consistant...
 

mac22

I was very pleased with this set.... It was beyond my expectations.

Mac22
 

minrice

etherial dreams said:
I want a nice rider waite deck to read with and the ORW isn't doing it to me, yet I like its more mysterious tone in comparison to the Radiant or the Universal.

In my opinion this deck is loads better than the Radiant or the Universal. I have both of those decks and they just haven't clicked with me so I don't even touch them anymore. Already I too love the mysterious tone of this deck (that's a good way of putting it I think!), and it's reading accurately. We are connecting :) I think if it isn't working with Radiant or Universal you will love this one!
Can't say I know anything about the lamination in comparison to the other deck you have, but the lamination on this one is present but very soft, not shiny at all. I really love how they have done these cards!
 

etherial dreams

Oh My God I Am So Excited!!!1 My Order Has Been Dispatched And I Will Hopefully Have The Cards Tomorrow~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!yaaaaaay
 

truelighth

coredil said:
But the colors of the deck!
I would almost call it: the Greeny RWS!
All the cards with a yellow background have a kind of yellow-olive-greenish shade, and the other cards have a grey-brown-dirty shade!
To my taste it is too much artificial aging (if this was the aim of this coloring)

I compared the colors to my Pam D, which is I believe the Pam with the badest color.
And go figure, even the Pam D is a little bit lighter!
And when I compare it to my Pam C, then the Pam C has really much brighter and clear colors and it shines!

To be fair, this deck is probably nearer than others to the overall look of an original Pam deck, but the contrast of the pictures suffers a lot, and the overall in my opinion too dark shade ist certainly not to the taste of everyone.

In the copy I got, 35 cards (almost all majors) are completely out of center resulting in a thin white border on the left and a large white border on the right.

I finally received my copy too. And I really like it. And yes, for anyone who is still doubting, it is most definately a reproduction of the Roses&Lilies deck! Maybe we should actually start calling the Pam-A Roses&Lilies and the Pam-A crackled back different... not both Pam-A. Because they actually are significantly different!

I see your concerns, Coredil, about the reproduction. But to me it actually looks very well done. The fact is that the Roses&Lilies deck is actually darker. Also, there are a lot of cards in the Roses&Lilies that are out of center, with having a thin border on the left and a large white on the right.. so that actually would be a faithfull reproduction. Some even have hardly any border one one side.

Anyway, I plan to compare this one to my original Roses&Lilies in the next few days and then I will all let you know how they do compare to eachother in real life. For now, I am very pleased with what I see.
 

Le Fanu

Ive just received mine and Im very impresed. A very good, sturdy boxed set of goodies.

I wasn't too fussed about receiving postcards and stuff about PCS's other artwork, but it is absolutely wonderful to see her artwork and I take my words back. I found it fascinating, the postcards and the Kaplan book. I finally feel that Im seeing the deck in it's rightful artistic context.

Love the deck, the firm lines (no missing bits in the outline of the Star!) and the colouring.

My only peeve is that the cards feel too "tea-stained". The stained, "aged-ness" of it feels a bit overdone. But that's a minor peeve. I love it.

O if only all US Games decks had this cardstock!