PLAYING CARD ORACLE DECKS...preference?

[greatdane]

I have been fortunate in having both the original and the Alchemy edition. A kind ATer gifted me with the original (thanks Madame Squee!) and I purchased the smaller Alchemy edition. Love them both and am just starting to work with them.

My question, Gentle ATers, is if you have both, what is your preference and why? I have the book (again thanks to a dear ATer) and Ana's sent me the download for the Alchemy. I see this decks as somewhat similar, but with a quite different vibe in spite of some of the images being very similar.

I would dearly love to read ATers thoughts about each of these decks and how they see the differences, not just with the images, but in how they read.

 

[Dark Victory '39]

I'm seconding greatdane's request for people w/ both to comment. Would be very interested in what others say!

 

[greatdane]

Thanks, Dark Victory '39

I'm glad someone else is also interested in reading how others see this similar, yet different, decks! Love the images

 

[lark]

I've been using both for a while now and I see many differences.
And I'm so torn about this deck.
I was trying to think the other day if we have ever had an older deck that came out and altered the pictures and meanings and still tried to maintain it as the same deck.
Maybe Wildwood? But that was done by different people. Can't think of one...maybe others can.

I find myself pulling cards from one deck and pulling the same cards from the other deck and reading both pictures.
Some of them are so different that it alters my previous understanding of the old card.
I wish on one level that she would have just made a whole new deck, not used any of the old pictures for the new deck, just started over.
She had plenty of her fathers work to draw from so that wasn't the problem.

I love the linen card stock and poker size of the AE, I love the addition of color.
But on some cards small details I love were lost.
I also have the first printing of the PCO by Two Sisters Press and I love that papery card stock and yellow tone to those cards too.
So card stock and color aren't really the issue.

All the 9, 10, 11, 12 are people in the AO, sometimes it feels like it's a little to crowded in there.

The PDF file added a new level of understanding to some of the cards for me, that was great.

I could go through all the Aces and 2's and 3's and so on and compare all the differences and sameness...but that is probably better left for a study thread.

The thing for me is trying to take a well loved and understood card like for example....
The five of spades, which shows a tree full of crows, and in the new deck has a completely different picture called the Impotent King... and try and reconcile my previous old meaning/understanding to the new card.
The Impotent King has no back story for me, who the heck is he and where are my crows???
When I read his meaning in the PDF file I can see the connection to the old deck meaning...but the picture doesn't carry the same weight for me as in the old deck.

Now there are some cards in the AO that I think the change makes the meaning for me a little clearer...and I'll post that in my next post.

 

[greatdane]

Thank you for this, Lark!

Being new to both these decks, I have been slowly getting to know them, which I do by slowly looking over the images and shuffling. I got them both fairly close together, so didn't really get to know one before the other. Now, looking at them both, it seems they read literally like different decks, and yet some cards are really quite similar (but even some that look very much alike, seem to have differences that could be significant).

This has been harder to wrap my head around, even though I have had different editions of different decks in the past. There are many decks out there with different editions and some changes. But this one, while I love both editions, seems like I need to really read them differently, to take them totally as individual decks and not really look for similarities, but more how even the similar cards differ.