Pamelas A, B, C, D, E....and so forth

Le Fanu

Are there really no dates for the various Pamela editions?

I have read all the info on Holly's site, and I've read the article by K.F Jensen from the Manteia Courier and none of them seem to be very specific about datings for the early RWS decks. It seems that the Pamela A can be dated 1909, but everything else is a blur, with Pamela E being catalogued in the Cary Collection as 1920.

Is it possible to date the Pamela Bs with any certainty? I read here somewhere that the order as stipulated by Jenson cannot be taken for granted and that the order A, B, C, D & E may not actually be the order in which they were published.

Does the Pamela B edition come soon after the Pamela A (i.e 1910) or is it believed to come later (i.e 1920s? 1930s?)?

It seems odd to me that publications from the 20th Century cannot be dated with more certainty...
 

coredil

There is an extensive essay from Pietro Alligo in the Anniversary book from Lo Scarabeo.
Alligo has a quite different view than Jensen.

Without going into details Alligo search, lead him to say that Pam-B and Pam-C were printed first (the deck he calls "Original" deck) then comes Pam-A rose an lillies (the deck he calls "Copy" deck) and finally Pam-A-marbled (what he calls "Official" deck).
He does not talk about D.

Alligo situates the printing of the decks between the end of 1909 and the beginning of 1910.
In his hypothesis B and C, though printed first, have been placed in sale only in 1920 and 1931.

BTW it is a very nice book :)
1987-2007
Twenty Years of Tarot:
The Lo Scarabeo Story
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/books/20-years-lo-scarabeo/
 

Le Fanu

Thanks for that info, coredil.
coredil said:
In his hypothesis B and C, though printed first, have been placed in sale only in 1920 and 1931
Does that mean they were printed at roughly the same time but were kept in storage for 10 - or even 20 - years? Why would this be so?
Interetsing to know that Jenson's labelling are not definitive, and that there is the possibility that B or a C may come first...
 

gregory

Alligo and Jensen almost agree now. :)

The person to ask here would be truelighth.... a RWS nut if ever I met one !

Both the LS book and Jensen's are well worth the $$$$ !
 

coredil

Le Fanu said:
Thanks for that info, coredil.

Does that mean they were printed at roughly the same time but were kept in storage for 10 - or even 20 - years?
Yes.
Le Fanu said:
Why would this be so?
As I wrote, my answer was "without going into details" ;)
Of course Alligo gives quite a lot of precise explanations and details with illustrations for this, the whole essay is 12 pages long (with a lot of pictures)
But it is a little bit complicated to explain.
You should read the book ;)
And I have not enough time right now as I must leave ;)
Le Fanu said:
Interetsing to know that Jenson's labelling are not definitive, and that there is the possibility that B or a C may come first...
Yes.
I love Alligos hypothesis because it makes my copy of Pam-C the first printing :)

Best regards
 

roppo

My theory is that the rose and lily decks were the very first decks (the first series) sent to the Arts and Crafts Exhibition of 1909-10. And those pebbled back decks were the second series, as William Rider & Sons said in their adverts in The Occult Review 1910 April issue.

Mr Alligo's cracked stone theory is unacceptable for me because the oops line of The Sun was already in the OR 1909 Dec.issue illustration. And Waite wrote that "I have selected four specimens[Fool, Magician, High Priestess and the Sun] taken direct from the drawings and naturally much larger than they will appear in the colour-printed set".

As to the publishing date of the second series decks: I think we can place them by their degree of difference from the original drawings, especially the PCS mongram.
 

Teheuti

Roppo -

I agree with you. I'm sorry but Pietro Alligo's theory of the cracked stone just doesn't make sense, as you point out.

roppo said:
As to the publishing date of the second series decks: I think we can place them by their degree of difference from the original drawings, especially the PCS monogram.
What do you mean - about the monogram? What difference is there between the original Rose & Lilies and a Pam A "crackle-back"? Are you referring to the "LOVE" on the Sun card?
 

gregory

Ric posted some interesting stuff about that; it wasn't as simple as a cracked stone.... I wish I could find it....
 

roppo

hello tehuiti,

I mean the "which is earlier" question between Pam-A and Pam-B can be settled by examining their degree of difference from the original drawing. And PCS monograms are the best measure for the purpose because we know what shape they have to take exactly. For the illustration :

http://grimoire.blog.ocn.ne.jp/doll/files/pcssignatures.jpg

The PCS monogram in the OR is the starting point: well defined letters, no breaking of lines.
PKT and Pam-A both have same line-breaking, but their direction of lines are not far from OR one. Pam-C PCS monogram shows considerable derogation: P is deformed, S is not done by one stroke. These features suggest a presence of copyist and the absence of Pixie.

I believe the line drawings of Pam-A Roses & Lilies and Pam-A Marble are identical. Their color tones are quite different, perhaps because of their cardpaper-quality. My hypothesis is -- after printing the several hundred Rose & Lilies decks, Sprague & Co procured the marble pattern cardpaper from a third party and started to print the second series, ie, Pam-A Marble.

Sorry if my theory is confusing and not clear. I have yet to get hold of some substantial proofs!
 

Le Fanu

What's PKT as identified in the second signature?

ETa: GOT IT! It must be Pictorial Key to the Tarot! Clever me! :)