How many original copies of the 1760 TdM Conver are there in existence?

We know about the original copy of the 1760 Conver Tarot de Marseille that's in the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris and photoreproduced by Héron. We also know about the original copy of the 1760 Conver TdM that's in a museum/library in Italy and photoreproduced by Lo Scarabeo. Are there any other original copies of the 1760 Conver TdM in existence?

Note: I'm aware of the Camoin Bicentennial deck but that's a 19th century deck using the 1760 moulds.

Thanks!

That's an interesting question, but I don't know the answer.

None of my references exhaustively catalogue every Conver 1760 in existence.

You might try writing Thierry Depaulis at
thierry.depaulis@freesbee.fr

You can write in French, but he speaks English, and is always willing to provide some kind of answer.

My thought would be, since the original blocks are still extant, it would seem to me that a comparison between a modern printing from the blocks, like the Bicentennial, compared with a facsimile of a surviving first edition of 1760, would show everything you needed to know about the deck, without the necessity of an exhaustive comparison of identical pressings.

Or even, compare the Lo Scarabeo with the Héron, and see if there are any differences. If there aren't any, you could rest assured you're not missing anything. But if there are, you might need to get the Bicentennial or another facsimile from the original blocks (which are quite worn now), to see if you can tell where the problem lies.

Ross

Ross G Caldwell said:

Or even, compare the Lo Scarabeo with the Héron, and see if there are any differences. If there aren't any, you could rest assured you're not missing anything. But if there are, you might need to get the Bicentennial or another facsimile from the original blocks (which are quite worn now), to see if you can tell where the problem lies.

Click to expand...

Hi Ross. I just received my Lo Scarabeo deck yesterday so I can now start comparing between the two decks photoreproduced by Lo Scarabeo and Heron, respectively. It seems that there are colour design differences, and design differences, between the two decks. For example, in the LS 6 of Batons there are no plants at the top or bottom of the card as there are on the Heron card. As well, the side plants between the two decks are different. In the Heron, the side plant has blue in the leaves and is a "ribbon"-like plant. In the Lo Scarabeo, the side plant has no blue in the leaves and is like the side leaves in the 7 of Batons of the Heron and Lo Scarabeo. This suggests different moulds, at least in printing of the 6 of Batons?

You're right, they are different. I haven't compared them both thoroughly yet, but in the 6 and 7 of batons it is definitely a different woodcut - i.e. the differences can't be ascribed to wear on the same plate.

The "signature" cards, 2 de coupe and 2 de deniers, otherwise look the same - differences could be ascribed to a slightly different pressure of impression and colouring later.

But the 6 and 7 de baton differences are striking. The differences must come from a different plate having been used.

At the height of production, I suppose there must have been more than one set of plates in the shop, and since they are handmade woodcuts and not machine generated, they would not be identical in every respect.

You also wrote -
"Note: I'm aware of the Camoin Bicentennial deck but that's a 19th century deck using the 1760 moulds."

I presume you meant "a 20th century deck"? The bicentennial of 1760 was 1960

Good questions there. Let's keep looking.

Ross

Ross G Caldwell said:

You also wrote -
"Note: I'm aware of the Camoin Bicentennial deck but that's a 19th century deck using the 1760 moulds."

I presume you meant "a 20th century deck"? The bicentennial of 1760 was 1960

Good questions there. Let's keep looking.

Ross

Click to expand...

Hi Ross ... What I meant about 19th century is that there are 19th century decks extant with the Bicentennial's limited colours. You're right, the Camoin Bicentennial itself is a 20th century deck.

The task of comparing all extant "1760s", and fragments thereof, would appear to be monumental. It is a task for a doctoral student, with time and money to do it.

In the first place, I would look in d'Allemagne, who catalogued so many in 1906. This book is out of print and very hard to find in libraries.

Next we would have to survey every museum with card collections; there are hundreds, with published catalogues, and not all of their collections will have been included in comprehensive published surveys like d'Allemagne and Kaplan.

Then we would have to go to these museums and look at the collections ourselves, especially (as is usually the case) a photograph of every card in the collection is not included in the catalogue.

I would write to experts also (in this hypothetical doctoral research); for instance Thierry Depaulis, who perhaps knows more than anybody about tarot cards in France. Philippe Camoin also, but he is selling his version, so caveat emptor.

Another question is that if we assume that there were several sets of plates, which is one explanation for why two Conver decks with the year "1760" on them could have different cards, then the first question will be how many there were; how many versions of the Conver deck from 1760 can we expect? This question may be in some account book somewhere, Camoin may know it, or it may be unknown.

Another explanation for the differences is that the 6 and 7 de baton (for example) were added to an incomplete pack by the museum, or by a previous owner to replace damaged or missing cards. This question will have to be answered one way or another, unless we can accept that there were several sets of plates. Then the question simply becomes how many there were, and so how many different packs - editions of the 1760 - we should allow.

Thus the answer to the simple question - "How many extant examples of the Conver 1760 are there?" is very hard to find out. With the differences you noted, there are already at least two.

I'm in the process of looking at the differences now, and I'll get back to you.

Ross

I think I've figured out what happened.

After looking at both side-by-side very closely, I am certain that every card in both packs was printed from the same plates, except for the 6 and the As de Baton, and possibly the Reyne de Baton.

The Lo Scarabeo pack does not have a 6 de Baton, so they took out the middle Baton of the 7 to create it. You can see that they are otherwise identical; see in the faded areas at the ends of the Batons for example.

The shading strokes in the right "stump" of the As de Baton are quite different from the Héron, and the overall impression seems to me to be different. It could be just a much thicker inking, but I don't think so.

The remarks for the Reyne are kind of the same - not sure she is different, but I have a sense she is.

Finally, in the Héron it is the Valet de Baton who gets the "Nas. Conver/France" along the edge of his card, while in the Lo Scarabeo it is the Valet de Deniers.

But overall, the two decks are from exactly the same moulds, except the colouring varies significantly.

If you look at the Roy d'Epée, you can see he is holding a sceptre in his left hand. In the Héron you can see the pommel, but in the Lo Scarabeo, it is covered over in red. However, looking closely, you can see the outline of the pommel underneath the red.

My impression of identical plates is confirmed especially by the suit of Epées. If you look at the black parts in both decks, the blades I suppose, you can see the irregularities in the ink, that must have been caused by the wood grain. In both decks the same irregularities occur (i.e. little holes, impressions of circles and other shapes, artefacts of the wood grain itself) in the same places. This shows beyond doubt that they were printed from the same wooden plates.

Ross

Ross G Caldwell said:

The Lo Scarabeo pack does not have a 6 de Baton, so they took out the middle Baton of the 7 to create it. You can see that they are otherwise identical; see in the faded areas at the ends of the Batons for example.

....

But overall, the two decks are from exactly the same moulds, except the colouring varies significantly.

Click to expand...

DESIGN DETAILS

Ross ... Those are keen observations. Thanks! I never would have noticed that about the Lo Scarabeo 6 and 7 of Batons. It's a shame that LS didn't mention, in the little white booklet that accompanied the LS deck, the making of such an alteration.

It's all the more ironic, since the LS deck's box states: "The accurate philological reproduction of one of the most exquisite models of Marseilles Tarots".

It's a shame about the missing 6 of Batons in the LS museum specimen. The Six is unique in its botany among the Batons pips and is a very interesting card.

However, looking at the bright side, there are still 77 authentic cards in the LS deck to examine and compare against the Héron deck.)

By the way, for the record, the Camoin Bicentennial deck's 6 of Batons has essentially the same design as the Héron 6 of Batons. http://www.byzant.com/tarot/structuresuit.asp?wands

COLOURING

Onto the question of colouring. Aside from what I had thought (which would now seem erroneous) about design differences, the colour differences also intrigue me. That's another reason why I was wondering about other extant Conver 1760 decks.

I was wondering which of the two colourings (Héron museum specimen vs. the LS museum specimen) would have been the most common colouring.

Also, we know that these plates (or similar ones) would have been used over a considerable period of time. According to the Camoin website, those (or at least, similar) plates were used in or about the year 1880 for the four-colour Conver deck which was the colouring precedent for the Camoin Bicentennial deck (1960). I wonder how many different systems of colouring there were during the period from 1760 to 1880. What was the actual printing date of the Héron museum specimen? and that of the LS museum specimen?

Ross G Caldwell said:

My thought would be, since the original blocks are still extant, it would seem to me that a comparison between a modern printing from the blocks, like the Bicentennial, compared with a facsimile of a surviving first edition of 1760, would show everything you needed to know about the deck, without the necessity of an exhaustive comparison of identical pressings.

Click to expand...

Is the Camoin Bicentennial deck still available? The Camoin website features two decks in the online shop: the Camoin-Jodorowsky, and one listed as "Reprinting of the Marseille Conver (1760) in 1968". I assume the second is the Bicentennial, but comparing the images there to the ones on byzant.com I can't tell if they are identical.

Felicity

The LS deck shows greater wear than the Heron deck. I wonder to what extent it depends on the wear and tear of the actual specimen vs. wear and tear on the printing plates. To the extent that it's wear and tear on the plates, this could suggest that the LS specimen is a more recent printing than the Heron specimen, by decades at least.

If we assume that the Camoin Bicentennial is printed with the same plates as the LS specimen, the LS wear and tear could be to the actual specimen rather than to the plate. The LS Temperance card shows more wear than the Bicentennial Temperance card.

http://www.byzant.com/tarot/structuremajor.asp

Hi Felicity ... I can't guarantee that the byzant.com images are the Camoin Bicentennial, but they probably are. Jmd thought they probably were (See recent thread). If not, then the Byzant site's deck is yet another Conver deck and would therefore be even more interesting.