The Third Roses & Lilies RWS pack

[truelighth]

Hello Truelight.

I think you came upon your copy at a time before very many people understood what they were looking at.

*rest of post snipped due to length*

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us, OnePotato! I enjoyed reading it and I think you probably are very close to the truth. It just makes sense this way. And yes, I do think I got my copy, and copies of my other old Pam's in a time that people didn't see the significance yet. Apart from a few that were already busy with it, like Holly and Frank and some others. And that was my luck!

About what you wrote, I also had trouble believing the whole stone crack theory from Pietro Alligo. Sure, it could account for the squiggly line, but then there are more sources. I was reading Frank's book on the subject again and he mentions a publication of the sun card in an article in 1909, featuring the Sun card in black and white. And interesting enough, this Sun card has the little squiggly line. And the number XVIII instead of XIX. Obviously a mistake they later corrected. But that means the line was supposed to be there in the design from the beginning.

Further, I appreciate your insights on the lithography process. Because that indeed also says to me that the crack theory is not the way to go. One of the problems I had with that particular theory, was that the line art on the Pam B/C is so much more inferior to the Pam-A. Why first use inferior line art and then later use a much better copier, but inferior cardstock. That doesn't make sense.

I also think you are probably right about the separation of the cards on this particular copy. It could very well be that if my copy had been stored in an attic or a damp place, the same would have happened. At it stands, it looks very much like my copy was indeed used. The box is not as pristine as the one that was sold now, for one, and then there are the notes and even notes in the book. I don't think it was used much though.

I think you are probably right about the storyline you put together too. With the printing. And also about Margaret etc. I think Margaret bought it and then it probably also had the letter. For some reason, she never exchanged it. And then decided to give it away. But well, if you give a present like that, of course you would take a letter like that from the company out, I would think. So that would account for the fact that mine doesn't have that letter. It may have originally came with it.

Also, as you said, what you describe would account for the fact that there are so few copies of the Roses&Lilies around. I am pretty sure that the later print run of that early march was the deck we now know as the Pam-A crackled back. The cardstock is so much more superiour and the surface much smoother and nicer. Although I personally still like my Roses&Lilies more.

Anyway, I think it is great this deck appeared. It really does give us a much more clearer picture. And thank you again for your thoughts.

As far as seeing the decks, unfortunally I live in the Netherlands. But otherwise you would be welcome to it. Frank Jensen also came one time to measure and look at the Roses&Lilies. So if you are ever in the neighbourhood ...

 

[truelighth]

Has the book black and white or colour illustrations?

Most of the key's that come with the early decks have black&white illustrations. So I think this one will too.

 

[Cerulean]

I do not have pictures in my set, the deck copy.I will check, but I only recall text.

If we are talking about the navy book with the set, I do not recall illustrations in sets I have seen labelled Pam A, B, or C. I will check my set and references.

Any of the four navy Key to the Tarots circa 1909-10 were without illustrations.

Three had decks: one was mine, pebbled back, believed circa 1909-10.

One did not have a deck, belonged to a friend. No pictures.

Two Key to the Tarots came with a Pam B and Pam D. In more than a few card by card and book overview "Throw_Downs" (we check the versions), pebbled back cards, varioius fronts, navy blue books titled Key to Tarot without pictures if it is the set that comes with the deck.

Frank Jensen dates the US Playing card Roses and Lilies to 1916, a later edition.

Hmm...where is our thread for 1909 and close comparisons?

Curious.

 

[gregory]

The pretty little book shown on the ebay listing looks very unlike the one with the commemorative set... which is NOT a little hardback, as that one appears to be. That's why I wondered.

 

[Cerulean]

Yes it was a navy Key to Tarot-the gold imprint and embezzled texturing

were beautiful--as if never used.

The editions of Key to Tarot with decks from 1909 throughout editions differ...there is a thread with an article online, but I think someone else posted the same article also here. I will check if it mentions Key to Tarot.

Since my phone does not open many text links , had to resort to Frank Jensens book and page 92
of The Story of the Waite Smith Tarot says

"The Key to the Tarot 1910 edition was in 1911 followed by The Pictorial Key to the Tarot, which, besides being illustrated in line art by Pamela Coleman Smith's 78 designs, was expanded by 50-200 words ..."

Anyway, it adds more detail or hopefully corrects an impression I got from Truelighth's answer. I got the impression she was saying 1909 or 1910 navy small book you were asking about titled Key to the Tarot were illustrated...but the first, earliest editions I have seen are not.

Sorry if I was mistaken, but it puzzled me. Frank Jensens photo on page 181 of the 1910 Key to the Tarot stamped in gold and navy bevelling shows what I thought to be identical to what we have seen in the states. Come to think of it, I remember a fifth Key to the Tarot, it was with a Pam B, no pictures....and it was owned by someone else...

The pretty little book shown on the ebay listing looks very unlike the one with the commemorative set... which is NOT a little hardback, as that one appears to be. That's why I wondered.

 

[truelighth]

Most of the key's that come with the early decks have black&white illustrations. So I think this one will too.

And this is what I get when I answer too soon and am with my mind somewhere else... lol!
*hangs head in shame*

Forget what I wrote here. Cerulean is right, the Key that came with the earlier decks (with the nice blue hardcover etc) doesn't have illustrations. I think the first "key" to be illustrated was one of the knock-off's from DeLaurence. Holly has a copy of that book. But I could be wrong about it being the first with illustrations.

 

[truelighth]

Frank Jensen dates the US Playing card Roses and Lilies to 1916, a later edition.

I take it you are referring to the deck that was used to print the so-called facsimile "Original Tarot" by US Games. As far as I know, it is still a mystery how that came about. It has the Roses&Lilies back, but the line-art of a Pam-C. And the deck US Games presumably used to copy has yet to surface.

Frank does mention a Pam-A with red/brown Roses&Lilies pattern that was once in the possession of the United States Playing Card Company (USPCC), and registered with a 1916 date.

 

[Cerulean]

No Truelighth, I was reading your note of the 1916 from the US Playing Card Company

No Truelighth, I was referring to your note of the 1916 deck from the collection of the U. S. Playing Card Company. I must have mistakenly written blue, so thank you for making the reference clear now!

Later-no, I did not write any color refetence to Frank Jensens 1916 Roses and Lilies note, only wrote US Playing Card Co without further saying USPCC, so I could see people misreading my reference.


I did not mean Stuart Kaplan's deck, as it is a mystery.

I hope my specific references are precise, so added this clarification and kept my original post intact.

Thanks

Cerulean

I take it you are referring to the deck that was used to print the so-called facsimile "Original Tarot" by US Games. As far as I know, it is still a mystery how that came about. It has the Roses&Lilies back, but the line-art of a Pam-C. And the deck US Games presumably used to copy has yet to surfac

Frank does mention a Pam-A with red/brown Roses&Lilies pattern that was once in the possession of the United States Playing Card Company (USPCC), and registered with a 1916 date.

 

[JasonLion]

Frank does mention a Pam-A with red/brown Roses&Lilies pattern that was once in the possession of the United States Playing Card Company (USPCC), and registered with a 1916 date.

I read that to mean that USPCC "believed" that the deck dated from around 1916. That doesn't mean that it actually did, or that they had anything beyond a rough guess of the age of the deck. I know I am reading a fair bit into a short quote, which could be read other ways, but I certainly wouldn't take that 1916 date as being at all reliable.

The crackle back is applied to the entire sheet of paper with a roller, you can spot the repeats if you study it for a while. The Roses&Lilies back would have had to be printed in the press, and would also have had alignment issues. I have always wondered if the switch to the crackle back had to do with quality issues, or with cost savings, or perhaps both. I much prefer the Roses&Lilies. It isn't difficult to imagine that they did as well. Does the alignment problem over-ride the better appearance, or was the decision strictly cost driven?

The Pam-A lithography is excellent and would have taken a very experienced lithographer and a fair bit of time to do. The printing quality is also very good given the time period. After the problem with unsuitable card stock and needing to replace a number of decks, it isn't difficult to imagine that some cost cutting that didn't impact the deck significantly, i.e. simplifying the printing of the back, would have been quite welcome.

 

[truelighth]

No Truelighth, I was referring to your note of the 1916 deck from the collection of the U. S. Playing Card Company. I must have mistakenly written blue, so thank you for making the reference clear now!

I see that I actually misread it. I read it as: Frank Jensen said the US Games copy (meaning Kaplan's) of the Roses&Lilies was from 1916, but you wrote about the US Playing Card copy. So that is where I got mistaken.

Like I said in my earlier post, my mind was half on something else and I tend to make mistakes then. But I guess it is cleared up now.