Beautiful but unsatisfying decks

[Morgane_49]

Zerner-Farber (should have known better after buying the animal meditation kit)

Mystic Dreamer (I found the box beautiful, the deck useless)

Tarot of the Sweet Twilight (no personality or depth, but lots of nice colours / images)

Now, I could go on and on about decks that suck you in with a couple of beautiful cards, then let you down with the rest!

 

[Flaminica]

The Bosch Tarot. It looked great in the box but when I riffled through it, it positively snarled in my face and refused to speak to me.

 

[JPT]

Let's Ask.......

... the same question in Time:

>Ask the original Marseilles printers (16th century):
First, understand that business was THE driving force that made Tarot available and popular at that time...after all it was a game right! So, with that in mind ask the Marseilles vendors what they would think of the Waite Deck...as a reading deck.
They would possibly have said that anyone wanting to use these cards for divination was a 'deviant' and the real money was in making cheap cards for gambling.
Summarized response: 'beauty is not the point and satisfaction is based on the user/buyer understanding the symbols relative to his region, wearing out the cards out and buying another deck'.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Ask Crowley's opinion of the Waite deck as a reading deck?: (***explitives -acidic profanity********* almost in cardiac arrest and fuming.... I think you get the message!
IMO......if he could have spoken in a language mere mortals could comprehend...he might have said "its too commercial, too pretty, its painted by a stage designer, and Waite has degraded the true essence of Tarot with this Renaissance story book theme. But his detestable act was that he changed the natural order of the 8 -11 arcana ... who does that man think he is...the heirophant of the Golden Dawn or something!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Ask Waite if he could imagine using Crowley's deck for readings? First of all I seriously doubt whether Waite ever did a session for anyone. Secondly, rather than make a simple statement he would instead write a voluminous rebuttal of every card and concept in Crowley's deck. IMO his Victorian pomp would subdue any sort of emotionally charged response but one might read between the lines and come up with "its not beautiful and certainly not satisfying".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Next let's ask the same question collectively of the publishers who over the past 40 years have specifically and consistently propagated RWS clones to homogenize Tarot so that they cold also sell books on Tarot w/o decks. Would they not say that "reading with the Waite deck (and buying into the Eden Gray's self-penned scenario of the Fool taking a transformative walk through the major arcana - fact >the Zero is the Whole >it does not move!) offers the broadest market appeal ... beauty and whimsy is what sells cards ... whether they work or not is not our concern. Satisfaction can be ascertained at the end of every financial quarter."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Consideration:
>There is NO original Tarot stashed away in some in gilded box....even if there was, would it not be like reading a document relevant to the reality of the time in which it was written.....like a news paper from the 50's?
>Tarot is, if anything at all, a work-in-progress ... that is still with us today because ... it has NEVER stopped changing.
Whoopee!

 

[Wendywu]

The Haindl, like sipping a Romanee Conti while watching the sunset over the hills of Burgundy, is beautiful.

Zan - you are a true romantic!



I agree with so many choices here - I love my Boho but haven't read with it. I deliberately haven't bought any CGI decks - I know they won't babble at me... so many decks are pretty and look soooo inviting but it's like the difference between a chef-made fancy hotel dinner, or else eating the filling, incredibly tasty yummy dinner that my partner has cooked just for us.

 

[Skimo]

Nice way to think about it JPT!

 

[Hemera]

I have *so* much wanted to love the Golden Botticelli, Paulina, Faerie (Linda Ravenscroft) and Rabbit Tarot but they are just pretty pictures.
Ciro Marcetti decks are pretty, even beautiful, but that´s where it ends for me.

Now, The Sweet Twilight is another matter. It goes deeper than the deepest ocean. Which again just shows what a personal thing this is.

I am wondering about Shadowscapes. It looks so promising but then again, so did Paulina..

 

[firefrost]

Lol - practically every deck I've ever owned - and I think my collection peaked at around 70!

Those who know me know that I have around a dozen left, just a couple of which I read regularly with.

Beauty certainly is in the eye of the beholder, and it's as varied as the different reading styles around here.

 

[Isarma]

The Witches Tarot..... I LOOOOVE those Majors so much, so beautifull, surreal... but.... they don't sing very well to me... and the Minors... well just forget that....


Beautifull Deck, non singing cards to my mind

 

[Alan Ross]

I'd say the Haindl but it's not even pretty mwuhahahaha!!!

I also find the Haindl to be unreadable, but not because of a lack of depth. It's hard to imagine anyone accusing the Haindl of being shallow. I'm getting the impression that some responders are listing any decks that are unreadable for them, not just the ones that "aren't all that deep."

Here's my list of decks I own that strike me as pretty, but shallow and unreadable:

Archeon Tarot
Fantasy Showcase Tarot
Favole Tarot
Golden Tarot of Klimt
Gothic Tarot (Vargo)
Mystic Faerie Tarot

I love the Gilded Tarot and read with it, but I admit it's fairly shallow, especially compared to Ciro's later decks. Other decks that I feel aren't very deep include Natalie Hertz's Faerie Tarot, the Cruel Thing Tarot, and Stella's Simple Tarot, but these are decks I'm still able to read with.

It's a bit tricky deciding what decks are shallow. MRP's Victorian Romantic and Bohemian Gothic don't have a lot of symbolic depth, but they achieve a different kind of depth, by evoking mood and suggesting a narrative. I feel the same is true of Kat Black's Golden Tarot and Touchstone Tarot. I suppose that any deck can be considered "shallow" if a reader can't get anything out of it, and any deck can be considered "deep" if a reader connects with it and can read effectively with it.

Alan

 

[Le Fanu]

Zerner-Farber (should have known better after buying the animal meditation kit)

Not all decks need to be used to read with

This would be the ultimate slap in the face for an earnest tarot deck creator! Imagine telling them "hush, hush, don´t worry! We don´t need to actually read with it!"

Looks like the Zerner-Farber is out in the lead right now!

Kat! the Soprafino! How could you? Also, mentioning no names, funny seeing people mentioning decks which they enabled me on... Me feels gullible...

*harumph*