Design and Colour Differences between the Fournier and Grimaud TdM decks

CMS: Design and Colour Differences between the Fournier and Grimaud TdM decks

I was curious what differences there are between the two decks besides the obvious difference in background colours.

Generally speaking, apart from the difference in background colours, the Fournier follows the colouration and lines of the Grimaud, so that the Fournier is a clone of the Grimaud. In turn, the Grimaud is, colour excepted, a clone of the 1760 Conver. The fact that the Fournier follows clear Grimaud design changes from the 1760 Conver, such as the Temperance card and the 4 de Deniers and that the Fournier follows Grimaud rather than any of the two 1760 Conver deck colours, shows that the Fournier is a clone of the Grimaud rather than the 1760 Conver.

I've noticed, though, that, in some cards more than others, detail lines that I see in the Grimaud and Conver card are missing from the corresponding Fournier card. I've noticed this, for example, in the Roy d'Épée and the Reyne de Deniers. Also, the details of, and relative sizing of dark areas of, the coins throughout the Deniers cards are different between the two decks. For instance, in the 10 de Deniers of the Grimaud deck, the dark areas are relatively bigger than in the case of the Fournier. For those who care, details and dark area relatively sizing for the various coins in the Deniers suit in the Grimaud are different from the 1760 Conver.

Non-background colouring can also be different between the Fournier and Grimaud decks. For example, in the Roy d'Épée, the area behind the king's yellow crown is green, while in the Grimaud both the crown and the area behind it are yellow. For example, as well, the right hand bottom white area of the yellow strip of the queen's gown in the Reyne de Deniers of the Grimaud deck is coloured a washed out yellow in the Fournier card.

Any other observations are welcome. Like I said, my observations above are just my preliminary observations.

Hi Rusty,

I'm interested in anything about the history of the Founier because I like it so much but don't have the Grimaud to compare it with. It is not easy to find much in terms of Fournier history, even on the net.

However, I do have the Conver and there are many differences in detail and colour there on most cards, often just tiny things. I noted some in the discussion about Temperance.

I guess I might have to get another Marseilles that is a little more contemporary than the Conver. Does anyone read with the Conver anymore, or has it become an artifact?

Moongold

Moongold said:

However, I do have the Conver and there are many differences in detail and colour there on most cards, often just tiny things. I noted some in the discussion about Temperance.

I guess I might have to get another Marseilles that is a little more contemporary than the Conver. Does anyone read with the Conver anymore, or has it become an artifact?

Click to expand...

hi moongold,

If there are (non-background) colour differences between the Héron Conver and the Fournier, chances are that those colour differences were initiated by the Marteau and reflected in the Grimaud deck. In terms of line differences, as noted in my post above they could have been done by Marteau or could have been done by the artist of the Fournier deck. The way of confirming these things is via the Grimaud, from which the Fournier is cloned.

For more contemporary Marseilles decks than the 1760 Conver, check out the 1930 Marteau (Dusserre), the Grimaud and the gorgeous Camoin-Jodorowsky. The Camoin-Jodorwosky uses basically the same colour usages as the Heron version of the 1760 Conver, but unfortunately (at least for me) "adds" or "brings out" design details. (Revisionism during restoration is less frequent in the case of Marteau - if you forgive him for changing the colours - than in the case of Jodo-Camoin and Hadar.)

Moongold, have you visited the Fournier Website? They have a certain amount of information available there.

Bob

Moongold said:

I guess I might have to get another Marseilles that is a little more contemporary than the Conver. Does anyone read with the Conver anymore, or has it become an artifact?

Click to expand...

Moongold ... there's no reason why you can't read with a photoreproduction of a 1760 Conver. The weathered look might be distracting at first for reading, but eventually you'd get used to. Much of 20th century tarot practice in France has been centred around the Grimaud, because it was generally the only Marseilles deck around in print. It was only around the 1970s or 1980s (someone please correct me) that a photoreproduction deck (i.e., the Héron) of any Conver become available to people outside of museum visits.

You can see colour scans of the major arcana and some of the minor arcana of the Fournier at the following links:

http://www.inicia.es/de/mukunda/tarot_de_marsella.htm
http://www.inicia.es/de/mukunda/tarot_de_marsella2.htm

Thanks Bob and Rusty Neon for your replies ~

I have actually visited a number of sites including Fournier's own but didn't find much about the history of the deck itself, or any information about what might have inspired the decision to paint the way they did.

The Founier site is quite a maze to navigate so perhaps I missed something but there is plenty of time.

Marion told me about a book in French which my schoolgirl French and a dictionary might be enough to see me through. This book covers the Marseilles generally, however, not just the Fournier.

I don't feel a crying need for clearer information and would prefer to discover some things for myself or to say what comes to mind. I am happy simply to pick things up as they come my way or as I seek them out. Might sound haphazard but it's the way I have always learned.

Some books, which I've spoken about in other threads are proving immensely valuable right now.

Reading with the Conver

Rusty, I have read with this a bit but the deck lacks vitality for me which is why I went for the Fournier. Now I use the Conver mainly for comparison purposes.

Moongold

Moongold said:

Reading with the Conver

Rusty, I have read with this a bit but the deck lacks vitality for me which is why I went for the Fournier. Now I use the Conver mainly for comparison purposes.

Moongold

Click to expand...

Hi Moongold,

I feel the same way about the Héron. I have always thought it was the heavy lamination. But I think it is slightly too small as well. But I couldn't be without it, if only as a deck to scrutinize in study.

If you want a Conver 1760 that has vitality, I think the Lo Scarabeo will fit the bill. Theirs was pulled from the same blocks as the Héron. True, the original lacks the 6 of Bâtons, which Lo Scarabeo has made up with taking the middle bâton out of the 7, but otherwise it is a perfect deck. The colours are lighter, the images are bigger, and they have gone lighter on the lamination.

The deck I own with the most vitality would have to be the Vanderborre tarot, actually printed from 1780 blocks. It's not a true Marseille of course - Bacus for the Pope and Captain Fracasse for the Popess - but the deck is utterly charming. I suspect a Conver 1760 printed from blocks - such as the Camoin Bicentennial - would have the same effect, despite the wear on the plates which has caused the loss of some details.

Ross

ross ... I agree that the Lo Scarabeo version of the 1760 Conver has a vitality that the Héron doesn't. But that missing card .... aaargh. The Jodo-Camoin certainly is vital as well.

Ross G Caldwell said:

If you want a Conver 1760 that has vitality, I think the Lo Scarabeo will fit the bill. Theirs was pulled from the same blocks as the Héron. True, the original lacks the 6 of Bâtons, which Lo Scarabeo has made up with taking the middle bâton out of the 7, but otherwise it is a perfect deck. The colours are lighter, the images are bigger, and they have gone lighter on the lamination.

Click to expand...

Thanks Ross ~

The Lo Scarabeo Conver is the one I actually have but it was my first Marseilles deck and I knew little about reading with it when I began. I would probably be better reading with it now but am enjoying learning directly with the Fournier at present.

I always compare Fournier images with the Conver, however, just to note similarities and differences.

Moongold