Lo Scarabeo Rider Waite Smith 2008 edition

Le Fanu

I love this deck.

I thought I found the customary Lo Scarabeo multi-lingual titles denigrating, the removal of the Colman Smith Calligraphic titles (if indeed she did actually write them) unforgiveable - but there's just something about this deck that I love and so I shall defend it.

It may be the size, or the lovely rich blue Rose & Lillies backs, although I think it may just be the gentle colouring or sharp lines. I think of all RWS decks on the market - forgetting borders, forgetting font - this is the most beautiful. And I do think the colouring is very soothing and inviting and it just feels right somehow. I use it to read with more and more.

But I am intrigued; when it first came out, this deck was available in a lovely cream coloured box with blue wheatsheafs and vignettes. Graphically, this is lo Scarabeo's most decorative and pleasing box. Then something happened - it was reissued in a browner box with The Fool on the cover and with U.S Games stamped on the bottom. I have included two photos of the boxes - the original box on the left, the newer box on the right plus the bottom of the new edition box. The decks inside are exactly the same. I have multiple copies - and have trimmed one - and they are absolutely, utterly identical.

I now see that the original cream and wheatsheaf vignette box is disappearing. It is becoming obselete. The newer box is becoming the norm. I mean, it's OK as the deck is the same but I suspect something happened behind the scenes. I wonder whether U.S Games insisted on being credited on the bottom of the box and so the original boxes (which incidentally had Konigsfurt Urania printed on them) have been phased out?

But I do love this deck. I know it will never have a huge fan base because of the font and - oh heinous crime! - the removal of the calligraphy, but in spite of that, it has won me over. The colours really are quite special. And it's one of the few decks I wouldn't want a bag for since the box is just so exquisite
 

Attachments

  • LoS.PCS.Tarot.jpg
    LoS.PCS.Tarot.jpg
    105.9 KB · Views: 1,292
  • LoS.PCS.Tarot.2.jpg
    LoS.PCS.Tarot.2.jpg
    112.3 KB · Views: 960
  • RWS4.JPG
    RWS4.JPG
    86.2 KB · Views: 732

Emily

I had no idea that this deck was first out in 2008 - I only noticed it after I had bought the PCS Centennial.

I also have the cream box edition and have to agree that it is the colouring I like, I don't even notice the titles or the font used, I was just so pleased to have another Rider Waite with colouring that pleased and, yes, the backs are very appealing. I wonder if they would ever release this one as a mini?
 

gregory

I'm so glad someone else likes it. Me too. It feels RIGHT, somehow. (oops I see you said exactly that - Leffy but here's another vote for RIGHT !)

I'm sad about the box - and also that USG is STILL claiming copyright in Europe.

Hang on - is the box USG standard instead of LoS - with the EXCELLENT bottoms that don't collapse ? That would be a CRIME ! USG should adopt the LoS bottoms, not the other way around.

ETA again - it isn't on the LoS website. I wonder why not...

And using the ISBN brings up loads of HUGE prices and lists it as OOP - though abe has some reasonably priced new ones.
 

Le Fanu

gregory, the box uses the Lo Scarabeo template. Those fold-together flaps that don't catch when you slide the deck back in. It is, to all intents and purposes, a LoS box but - oh dear - so brown and with completely unimaginative font. I think that, like Wendy, I have simply stopped seeing the titles. I should post pics of my trimmed version, which is also lovely.

I always thought there was a story behind this edition of the deck. And why are LoS doing "luxury" versions of the ArteNouveau and de Angelis / Universal decks when surely this should be their biggest seller - it's the RWS after all?

I have picked up a few versions of this deck - I still occasionally see the creamy, wheatsheaf, original box around here and tend to snap them up (because I'm like that). And I am amazed at the consistency of the colouring. Each copy of the deck is identical. There isn't that variety of tone and saturation you sometimes get with other publishers.

Just really lovely hues and lines and backs and compactness. I don't yearn for a mini as I find this size is perfect for me.
 

gregory

One will enquire })

But thank GOODNESS for the box - why everyone just doesn't... :confused:
 

Le Fanu

Here is my trimmed version. Not a great picture (taken with my partner's phone -mine's charging) but I have made a point of not making any tweaks to the colouring.
 

Attachments

  • RWSTrimmed.JPG
    RWSTrimmed.JPG
    244.2 KB · Views: 685

PirateQueen

thanks for posting this - I hadn't seen this deck before. I prefer the more subdued RWS decks - I find the standard USG one too garish, but I have the Original and the PCS Centennial. I think I can overlook the font etc for the colouring, so I just ordered one (in the cream/blue box).
 

gregory

thanks for posting this - I hadn't seen this deck before. I prefer the more subdued RWS decks - I find the standard USG one too garish, but I have the Original and the PCS Centennial. I think I can overlook the font etc for the colouring, so I just ordered one (in the cream/blue box).
Hope that's the box you actually get...
 

Chrystella

For what it's worth, I'm in Melbourne, Australia and I've never seen the edition in the brownish box with the Fool. I've only ever seen the flowery blue one in my local shops. I don't have it (and maybe I should get it).
 

PirateQueen

Hope that's the box you actually get...

The listing actually specified it's the white & blue box and they had pictures of the deck both in and out of the box, so I'm reasonably confident.