Original 1930 Marteau deck sold on fleabay

DeToX

An original 1930 Paul Marteau Grimaud deck sold on ebay today:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/261394570947?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

I put a bid in but the price went beyond my motivation level. Funnily enough, I have noted that the Editions Dusserre which is a facsimile of the original in the BN has colours that look nothing like this. I also noted the colours of the 1930 copy on the Yale Bernecke web site and they are the same as the deck in the auction, i.e. nothing like the Dusserre colours. I don't know if Dusserre failed to reproduce the colours properly or sexed them up a little or what - I find it hard to believe they are an exact match of the colours of the BN copy.
 

Richard

The color saturation and lightness of a scan depend on a number of variables. An uncorrected scan often looks lighter and less saturated on a computer monitor than the original.

Here is another consideration. The Dusserre facsimile is probably accurate. However, it may not necessarily be a copy of the original 1930 printing. Is it known for sure that the BN deck is from 1930?
 

DeToX

This is true but it's a real pronounced difference. Also I scanned the Dusserre deck and viewing it on screen, the colours look very bright and saturated, much like the Dusserre deck does in person. The photographs and scans I've seen of early decks are completely different. All the Dusserre insert says about the BN deck is that the deck is based on the 1930 deck, the original can be found at the BN. So it's implied but not stated. Even so, it doesn't quite add up to me.
 

Richard

The only way to be sure would be to see the deck in the BN. I doubt that the colors would fade as much for a deck in a proper museum environment. Most printers inks are not formulated to be lightfast, for example. I was recently in an art museum in which cameras were not permitted because of a fear that someone's flash would fire inadvertently. My camera (an antique Leica) did not have a flash, but rules are rules.
 

DeToX

Indeed. One could argue that in a museum, the cards are subject to indoor lighting (although may be UV restricted?) whereas a card deck, even one in use, would be stored in it's box for the majority of the time (not on display) so arguably would suffer no real light damage? Presumably the main reason for colour deterioration is humidity or just the passage of time (oxidation), where a museum can eliminate at least some level of humidity. It also depends on when the item in question was donated to the museum. The deck isn't THAT old so I wouldn't expect so a big difference in colour deterioration. e.g. look at a Smith Waite deck from 20 years prior.

A lot of people seem to ignore flash photograph bans in art galleries, it's really quite shocking. Most people have digital cameras and they have the AF light even if the flash is switched off (assuming they are shooting with auto focus) so it's understandable they ban all cameras I guess. Plus it means you may spend more in the gift shop ;-D
 

Freddie

I am no expert on this subject, but I disagree with the Dusserre deck changing yellow to orange. It is clear to see in some photographs of the original 1930 deck that it has a lot of light yellow in it. I might be wrong about this.





Freddie
 

DeToX

I agree with Freddie, the yellows seem to be very distinct in the Yale Bernecke scans and also in the scans of the deck that just sold on fleabay. These cards would presumably have been under regular and museum conditions.

http://brbl-dl.library.yale.edu/vufind/Record/3829866

http://www.albideuter.de/html/m-dusserre-marteau.html

Without any actual evidence of the real look of the cards in the BN, I think it would not be unreasonable to treat the Editions Dusserre 'facsimile' with a little suspicion, until proven otherwise (IMO) - especially as they saw fit to change the 2 Derniers. What I suspect may have happened is that Dusserre either made a blunder with the printing, wanted to oversaturate the colours (like AGM/USG did with Thoth) for effect, or they deliberately choose to make the colours look more 'vintage'. But who knows.
 

arcano

The colors of the first edition are similar to the cover sold on eBay - (this tarot is not first edition)-.

As can be seen quite differently with Dusserre and Tarot colecciónYale Bernecke.

The Tarot Bernecke collection, is a later edition.
 

DeToX

The colors of the first edition are similar to the cover sold on eBay - (this tarot is not first edition)-.

As can be seen quite differently with Dusserre and Tarot colecciónYale Bernecke.

The Tarot Bernecke collection, is a later edition.

So do you believe th Dusserre 'facsimile' is a first edition then? From what you're saying I'm presuming not. The colours of the Bernecke deck are similar to this deck sold on ebay. If Dusserre's colours are true to the deck in the BNF then presumably these cards date later to both of the above?
 

arcano

I'll try to be understood.
Sale eBay.
The colors are similar - not identical - to a first edition. This is not the first edition.
Beinecke Ancien Tarot de Marseille, is not first edition.
Beinecke Collection vs. BnF.
Example: Card IX La Force
They are stronger and more muted colors. The light blue is blue. Not whites. The background is not white, it's pink.
Dusserre vs. BnF.
Example: Card IX La Force
The yellow color is orange. El background is white. The colors are more intense.
I'm seeing noticeable differences.
Dusserre: strong colors. Orange tone. White background.
eBay deck: Softer colors and a soft pink background.
I am sorry, my vision may fail.
Dusserre's colours are is not true to the deck in the BNF