Pixie Smith's Drawings: How do you like them colored?

[Pagan X]

I recall reading that Smith must have made at least two sets of images, one for the deck and one for the accompanying book written by Waite. Later decks were made from the book's illustrations.

I too think that she must have had input in the printing of her cards. She was a practicing occultist, printer and artist, how could she not have?

 

[Cerulean]

Thanks for the color reference!

I finally was able to locate the reference, written by Arthur Waite in Part II: The Docterine Behind the Veil and Section I Tarot and the Secret Tradition.

Thanks for the correction! Am I wrong in asking if anyone saw an edition of cards with coloring of Pamela Colman Smith's work, outside of Holly Volley's site? I only have seen the Green Sheaf with her handcoloring and it wasn't as complex as some of PCS's paintings that I saw long ago online in a defunct website.

The only edition of cards that I saw that claim accurate color tones is the 1971 Rider Waite edition by U.S. Games before they printed the copyright notice on the cards they published.

Mari H.

 

[Pagan X]

From Clive Barrett's site:

http://www.mythographica.fsnet.co.uk/t/rw/print.htm
.......................................................................................
Essentially there are three versions of the original artwork produced by Pamela Colman Smith - A, B and C.

Why this should be so may be hinted at in a letter from Pamela Colman Smith, quoted by Kaplan (vol. III). In it she appears to have had her doubts about the quality of the printing, prior to seeing the finished cards.

The 1909 (A) printing did prove to be inferior and was improved for the second printing. From inspection of the 1910 (B) deck, it would appear that this was not as good as it might have been, so it is possible that a decision was made not to use the black plate from B for the Pictorial Key (C).

There is some evidence that this may have been the case as the Pictorial Key (C) illustrations are superior to those of the 1910 (B), and the errors of the copyist interpretation have been corrected.



The cards were printed with line blocks (solid colour) rather than halftone blocks (graduated colour). The colours used were black, red, blue, yellow and grey.

To quote from Modern Printing, J. Southward, London 1913 -
" A line block cannot be made from a photograph or wash drawing without first making a pen and ink drawing (extra cost)."
If one assumes that Pamela Colman Smith's original illustrations were in colour, (line and wash), then of necessary tracings would have been made - for both the cards and the Pictorial Key illustrations.

The method as follows:-
First a tracing of the outline is made, from this tracing a negative is produced from which a zinc plate is etched. Using the same negative bichromate prints are made on zinc for each colour, after a slight etching they are painted with lithographic ink where colour is desired, (tints may be added when and where desired).

Errors occur on several of the 1910 (B) cards which were corrected for the Pictorial Key (C). Some are minor such as on the Sun, one of the sunflowers does not have a stork, others may be more significant. For example:-

Fool - The eagle which some see on the Fool's bag cannot be seen.
Magician - Loses snake belt.
Hierophant - only one of the circles on the floor has a cross, instead of all four.
Chariot - The symbols on his cloths are confused and indecipherable.
Death - The fallen kings crown is distorted and barely recognizable as such. The child's flowers are unclear.
King of Cups - The fish pendent is not recognizable.
That the two are copied from the same original artwork may be seen by close inspection. The split pen stroke caused by increased hand pressure, which occurs in other of Pamela Colman Smith's illustrations is to be found in the C illustrations but not in B deck. However in many examples of Pamela Colman Smith's work a characteristic line ending (the line is terminated by an elongated comma), may be seen. This may be found in B but is absent from C.

Generally the artistic quality of the B is poorer than C, but strangely the reverse is the case with the Empress, the detail, especially the decoration of the cushions, is much clearer on the B than C. A printer might well have more than one person capable of copying in his employ, which may account for this.

So, it is assumed that both C and B were traced from the missing artwork. This being so, then the copyists errors in B would suggest that the C version was a truer representation of Pamela Colman Smith's designs.



The printing plates for the Rider Waite Tarot Deck were 'lost' during World War Two, (this is a euphemism for melted down for the scrap metal). So when the Pictorial Key to the Tarot was reprinted in 1972, it was a photo-lithographic reprint of the 1910 edition. At the same time a deck was produced by adding colour to the Pictorial Key's illustrations. The colouring being done with reference to the earlier edition of the deck. This also was printed by offset lithography, in five colours - black, cyan, magenta, yellow and grey.

A further point, the printed cards both B and 1972 (D) have flat solid colours (with the occasional added tint), Pamela Colman Smith's illustrations would have had a more varied and natural colouring. Unless the original artwork is discovered the true appearance of the cards can only be imagined.

I have not had a chance to examine a set of 1909 (A) cards and unfortunately due to the small size of Dummett's reproductions little can be said about them, however, the line of the right hand border has been moved inwards making the cards narrower than either B or C.

From the above observations it would appear that of all the editions of the Rider Waite Deck, the 1972 (D) deck (and susequent reprints) is the closest we have to the artists original intention.



The above is based on the works mentioned and also Gilbert's A.E.Waite: A Bibliography, Aquarian Press 1983.
....................................................................................................

Storks on the Sun card? What storks? I don't see no steenkin storks. Maybe he meant stalks.

1909 deck from Holly Volley's collection:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/tarot/pkt/img/ar19.jpg

Comparisons of the Sun 1910 1931 1937 and unknown. Be sure to click on the images to see them BIG!
http://home.comcast.net/~vilex/SunComparison/main-Sun.html

As for all them Fools, it looks like the "new" RWS of US Games System not only has changed the font, but has had a Tangerine Attack! Look at the color change.

http://home.comcast.net/~vilex/ShipofFools.html

 

[Cerulean]

Thanks!

Now I see why I have two C versions.

Mari H.

 

[Lee]

Here's a question... if Pixie had indeed been involved in the printing, would she have said in her letter to Steiglitz that the cards would be printed probably very badly ...?

Frankly, I think that those people who are quoted as saying that she drew and colored the cards are simply assuming that she did. I also believe Happy Hardy (in the thread Rusty Neon linked to above) may have been mistaken when saying that he or she has heard tarot authors discussing having seen the originals. I don't believe anyone alive today knows where the originals are (or if they do, they're not telling!).

-- Lee

 

[Cerulean]

Hello there..

Hi Lee, I don't know about other tarot authors,

but Arthur Waite in his text did write down that Pamela Colman Smith drew and colored the cards for an 'enlarged' edition of his book "Key to the Tarot".. The quote and online link to the exact text (courtesy of many fans of the historical Golden Dawn) follow...so there is one author reference.

The Tarot cards which are issued with the small edition of the present work, that is to say, with the Key to the Tarot, have been drawn and coloured by Miss Pamela Colman Smith, and will, I think, be regarded as very striking and beautiful, in their design alike and execution. They are reproduced in the present enlarged edition of the Key as a means of reference to the text. They differ in many important respects from the conventional archaisms of the past and from the wretched products of colportage which now reach us from Italy, and it remains for me to justify their variations so far as the symbolism is concerned.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tarot/pkt/pkt0201.htm

 

[Pagan X]

Hm. Some very strange things here.

In Volume III of his Encyclopedia, Kaplan states that Smith made watercolors for the original artwork for the cards, thus, would have selected the colors employed.

Waite does not specify color when he describes cards. Is it possible that he was color blind? One out of six men are. I find it odd that a practicing ritualist does not mention colors, but maybe that was a Golden Dawn secret correspondence.

On Holly's site is a detailed description of her opinion of the "Original" deck. Her conclusions are very interesting:

*That is was a test print run, and tres yucky in terms of coloration and paper. The blue roses and lilies back art may have proven problematic in terms of cutting. The B&W art is that of the "A" series, 1909.

*What is now known as the "A" series must have been the model for the 1971 Yellow Box deck in terms of colors and line art. Yay. We know we love it.

*The "Original" deck issued in 1993 uses B&W lines most like the "C" edition, not the "A" edition. It is therefore a modern creation of a deck that never existed. A closer fit would have been the yucky colors with "A" art and the floral back.

Which raises some questions for me:

Why did US Games make an inferior recreation?

I think (I don't have the book in my office) that the new introduction to Waite's book included with the Original claims that it is a reproduction from photographs of Waite's personal deck that he used. Holly's comparison's do not corraborate this account .

In fact, if Holly's scenario is correct, what is being sold as the "Original Rider Deck" is actually the "Originally Rejected As Inferior Rider Deck".

It's possible that Waite did keep a copy of the "first first" edition, for sentimental reasons.

 

[Pagan X]

This brings me back around full circle.

If the 1993 deck is a Frankendeck, that is, a 1993 created coloring of the C art, then the coloring errors that bother me were introduced in 1993!

 

[firestorm]

All I know is, what I want first and foremost in a deck is that it performs well enough to make the most of my readings TODAY.....as in 2003. I like historical, original, old...whatever, decks, but they'd better BE better. I just bought the Universal Waite last week and I was completely astounded at all the imagery that I never noticed using my original RW due to the coloring. I have the supposed Original Rider Waite in the yellow box from US games 1971. Whether that is really the original or not, I dont' know. What I do know is that my readings with this deck seem incomplete do to everything I've been "missing". The universal is good, but the coloring in the Radiant is more to my liking, and I'm considering buying that one.


PaganX:......Frankendeck....that's funny!

 

[Pagan X]

It wasn't in the Waite books that I read that the "Original"was a photoreproduction, it was this review by Butler.

In the first chapter of Volume III of the Encyclopedia, Kaplan says the 1971 Yellow Box edition is designed with reference to Waite's personal deck. At that time, it was not known that the "Rose and Lilies" back design existed.