renaming Pam-A versions

truelighth

I was just posting some stuff in the review for the Smith-Waite deck, comparing the new deck to the original Roses&Lilies deck. And again, it struck me how much differences there actually are between the Roses&Lilies Pam-A and the crackled back Pam-A. They are both referred to as the Pam-A and the line art is the same. But as for colouring and printing patterns, even the dimensions of the images on the card, they are quite different. More different then the Pam B and C and yet we call those two by different names.

So I was wondering if perhaps it is about time we should start naming these two Pam-A versions differently as well. Instead of both referring them to as the Pam-A.
 

gregory

What does Jensen do about them ? does he discriminate - I vaguely remember reading SOMEWHERE about Pam A (a) and Pam A (b).....
 

coredil

OK, and when we're at it, let rename B, C and D because depending on what theory you believe B and C are the first printed one.
So here is the New Order:
B = A
C = B
A Lilies = C
A crackle back = D
and D = E

Everything is clear now?

:D :D :D

No, no, I guess its already confusing enough the way it is, isn't it?
I would not change anything and I think you already use very clear terms with the Roses&Lilies Pam-A and the crackled back Pam-A

Best regards
 

truelighth

Well, it is true that everyone knows what is meant by Pam A,B,C and D etc. Maybe I should actually write Frank about it. Or maybe we should leave it as it is. I just notice the confusion when we are talking Pam-A compared to the centennial Smith-Waite. Because of the said differences. Anyway, just seeing what the opinions are.

If we were to change the names, it would have to be done in a more international way that everybody knows what everybody is referring to.