Big Spreads or Small? How many cards do YOU like to read with?

[Arania]

11 hours ago, Wyrdkiss said:

I've thought of laminating a deck. How do you feel about the result, vs. the plastic water-resistant RWS they are advertising? 

 

 

I've only ever seen one of the plastic decks and it was kind of flimsy. Even the laminated cards need to be fixed somehow if there is wind, but they are stable enough to do that. Using, for example, a clothpin on the plastic ones might damage them, plus they'd probably flap around. There might be better platic versions out there though.

[AlbaTross]

Smaller spreads for me, with most being three cards.  When I was initially learning, I figured bigger spreads were better, and it would be a good flex if I could master them.  In reality though, bigger spreads are much more time consuming, and difficult to decypher.  The Celtic Cross in particular is a trap for beginners that I certainly fell into, and had to run back to this forum for help, and there are even larger and more intense spreads than that.  At the end of the day too, even when they're properly interpreted, I don't actually find that larger spreads necessarily offer that much more insight, or at least not proportionate to the time and effort it takes to interpret them. 

 

I'll make an exception for something like the annual spreads I used to do (and may pick up again in the future), because they are simple, and involve one annual theme card, with twelve other cards representing each month, where I only have to look at one each time and compare back to the annual card, making it more of a series of two-card spreads, with the majority of focus really being on one card at a time, as the annual card is more in the background.

 

Otherwise though, I find simplicity is the best rule of thumb.  I get the most clarity by virtue of having less to interpret at once, and doing simple readings is much less of an undertaking.  Besides, if I really want to know a wider scope of things on a topic, I can simply ask more questions and draw cards related to those questions as well.  I don't typically feel the need to look at a ton of different parameters at once.  Oftentimes, large spreads include positions that are superfluous to what I'm really inquiring about too.  

 

I'm not saying don't do large spreads, or that they're The Devil, or something, but at least for me, they're not something I'm huge into.  If I come across a spread I really like the idea of, I may give it a try, even if it has more cards than I would typically draw.  However, by and large, I can't think of any real drawbacks to keeping things simple, and you don't need to feel like you're some kind of pansy for avoiding the big ones.  If anything, feeling the need to flex is what draws far too many beginners into a trap they can easily avoid by being ok with taking things slow, and not diving into deeper waters, which don't necessarily offer the best views anyways.  

[Misterei]

1 hour ago, AlbaTross said:

... When I was initially learning, I figured bigger spreads were better, and it would be a good flex if I could master them.  ... The Celtic Cross in particular is a trap for beginners ...

This made me laugh b/c I recently had a supervisor "reframe" an impossible situation by implying I should "flex" or whatever. Nah. Pass.

That being said ... I start beginning students on 3-card spreads and don't even teach CC until level 2. It really is an advanced spread.

 

In my day [back in the stone ages] it was like CC was THE ONLY spread. So I learnt it as a baby reader and read nothing else for, like, the next 15 years. It was a different world. Now, some 44 years later ... I love CC and do it regularly ... but would NOT torture a beginner with it.

[AlbaTross]

55 minutes ago, Misterei said:

This made me laugh b/c I recently had a supervisor "reframe" an impossible situation by implying I should "flex" or whatever. Nah. Pass.

That being said ... I start beginning students on 3-card spreads and don't even teach CC until level 2. It really is an advanced spread.

 

In my day [back in the stone ages] it was like CC was THE ONLY spread. So I learnt it as a baby reader and read nothing else for, like, the next 15 years. It was a different world. Now, some 44 years later ... I love CC and do it regularly ... but would NOT torture a beginner with it.

It is a wonderful spread, steeped in history, which is part of what drew me to it.  It was in my RWS LWB, so I knew it wasn't some novelty spread that someone online came up with, the likes of which Google is filled with, or some equally novel deck-specific spread, the likes of which show up in many guidebooks as a deck creator's way of adding a little extra creative flare.  It is a tried, tested and true spread, and one that many before me have undertaken.  I assumed for that reason that it would be simple and straightforward.  I did not consider that maybe it was something best to wait to try until I had more experience.  While I definitely consider the CC a rite of passage, it is one that's very easy to jump into before one is ready.  

[Misterei]

3 hours ago, AlbaTross said:

It is a wonderful spread, steeped in history, which is part of what drew me to it ... I assumed for that reason that it would be simple and straightforward.  I did not consider that maybe it was something best to wait to try until I had more experience ...

LOL CC actually *was* a simple spread for its time. The spreads of the 1800s were notoriously complex. One had to count cards into piles and re-count and re-pile, and re-count and re-pile and and and ... I've tried a few and was tearing my hair and gnashing my teeth in frustration.

When Waite published a "simple" straightforward 10-card spread ... it was part of the revolution that caused RWS deck to become so popular.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Misterei

[Raggydoll]

3 minutes ago, Misterei said:

LOL CC actually *was* a simple spread for its time. The spreads of the 1800s were notoriously complex. One had to count cards into piles and re-count and re-pile, and re-count and re-pile and and and ... I've tried a few and was tearing my hair and gnashing my teeth in frustration.

When Waite published a "simple" straightforward 10-card spread ... it was part of the revolution that caused RWS deck to become so popular.

This. Also, the tarot readers of the occultist era sought enlightenment and union with God. To them, I’m sure tarot readings were supposed to have a complexed nature and lots of ritual surrounding it. This is very different from today when most people who approach tarot just wants to know what “X” thinks of them.

[Chariot]

Over the years, I have simplified my approach to Tarot.  I'm not in any way religious—any religion—but I do feel strongly that there is a lot more going on 'Out There' than we currently know.  I use the Tarot as a language ...a language for whatever is 'Out There' to use to communicate with me.  I definitely get the feeling that 'they' want to! They don't lie to me, as long as I take them seriously.  So, rather than concentrating on ritual—other than whatever it takes to get me in the proper frame of mind and heart—I simply try to find the best way for the 'Out There' forces to communicate with me.

This usually means giving them the most precise vocabulary possible.  Which, oddly enough, usually means a smaller spread of Tarot cards!   It's like the difference between reading a short story and the dictionary.   The dictionary has a lot more words, but the short story—while it doesn't use all the words—presents them in a more meaningful way.  You want a comprehensible story/answer, use a smaller, more focused spread, and the language will be less vague.

I know some people are very skilled at using huge spreads, but I'm not one of them.  That being said, I do use the Celtic Cross for many of my readings - but that's only 10 cards—only about 1/8th of the cards available to me from a single deck—and that's the largest spread I ever use. Out There can be fairly precise in their communication with me.

I feel quite grateful to Tarot, to have made that connection for me.  Tarot helps me to understand the here and now, and gives me reliable insight into future events.  

[Misterei]

16 hours ago, Raggydoll said:

... the tarot readers of the occultist era sought enlightenment and union with God. To them, I’m sure tarot readings were supposed to have a complexed nature ... This is very different from today when most people who approach tarot just wants to know what “X” thinks of them.

Yes, the Occult Revival (1880s-1920s) definitely was the birth of a new type of spirituality. It's the mother of the New Age movement of the 1960s-70s and onwards. It was the first blending of Indian / Asian occultism with Western Occultism since the Hellenistic era.

 

Still, I found it noteworthy that even Waite uses a lawsuit as his teaching example for CC. So people of the era were also doing "fortune telling" ... but I agree with @Raggydoll there was something more spiritual built-in to their approach. Different from the 2000s where you can call yourself an atheist and buy your tarot cards at Walmart .

7 hours ago, Chariot said:

Over the years, I have simplified my approach to Tarot.  I'm not in any way religious—any religion—but I do feel strongly that there is a lot more going on 'Out There' than we currently know.  I use the Tarot as a language ...a language for whatever is 'Out There' to use to communicate with me ...  giving them the most precise vocabulary possible.  Which, oddly enough, usually means a smaller spread of Tarot cards!  ... I do use the Celtic Cross for many of my readings - but that's only 10 cards—only about 1/8th of the cards available... from a single deck ...

Good point about the CC using 1/8 of the total cards. I get the same feeling as you @Chariot. Really large spreads that use more that 10 cards from a single deck start to feel like "reading the whole dictionary". Good way to put it.

I find for longer readings and complex questions ... I move to a new deck and use smaller spreads to focus tighter [7 cards]. There are often repeaters which confirm [xyz] in the first spread was on target. You can't get that if you just keep pulling, say, 1/4+ of the entire deck.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Misterei

[Chariot]

44 minutes ago, Misterei said:

 

I find for longer readings and complex questions ... I move to a new deck and use smaller spreads to focus tighter [7 cards]. There are often repeaters which confirm [xyz] in the first spread was on target. You can't get that if you just keep pulling, say, 1/4+ of the entire deck.

Yes, I agree that's an excellent approach.  If it's a complex question, do more than one spread to answer each aspect of the situation, rather than forcing a limited number of cards to deal with the entire complexity. AND, as you say, repeaters are very significant, when used this way.

[AlbaTross]

18 hours ago, Misterei said:

LOL CC actually *was* a simple spread for its time. The spreads of the 1800s were notoriously complex. One had to count cards into piles and re-count and re-pile, and re-count and re-pile and and and ... I've tried a few and was tearing my hair and gnashing my teeth in frustration.

When Waite published a "simple" straightforward 10-card spread ... it was part of the revolution that caused RWS deck to become so popular.

That's interesting to know, thanks.  Also, thanks to you, Ragdoll and Chariot for all your responses below, as it's all very enlightening, and I guess it goes to show how much of a difference perspective makes.  I have actually done bigger spreads than the CC, most of which I did before even trying the CC on the assumption that if I can master a really big spread I could handle any spread.  At the time I did my first CC, I figured I needed to step back from the big ones, and thought it would be a nice, simple and quaint option.  With that said, I'm clearly getting the sense that I've been spoiled by modern sensibilities and modern spreads.  Regardless of the reason though, I'm glad we now have the benefit of short, simple spreads.

 

Complex historical spreads do sound interesting in their own right though.  If I tried that sort of thing I would probably want to use a TdM deck, as half of the point for me would be to connect with that history, and I would want to use the type of deck that would have been used in pre-RWS times.  It definitely doesn't sound like something I would want to touch with a 39 and 1/2 foot pole for everyday readings, but more of a deep dive thing if I ever felt inclined to go on an adventure with one of my TdM decks and was able to muster up the time, dedication and energy for it.  Also, according to recent research I've done, I might not have as good a grasp of TdM as I thought, so suffice to say ,that is not a journey I plan to undergo anytime soon.  

[GreatDane]

Personally, small.  When I read for others, I generally do a three card Lenormand spread.  If they have another question that relates to their question that I feel I may shed clarity on, I may draw one card or do another three card. Really depends.

 

When I read for myself, I do one card, one question.  I will do up to five one card draws, if I think of another question to add clarity.  

 

That's just me.  I know there are MANY readers who do fabulous large spreads and their querents get a lot out of it.  For the kinds of questions I read on, three card Lenormand usually does it.

[Misterei]

1 hour ago, AlbaTross said:

... Complex historical spreads do sound interesting in their own right though.  If I tried that sort of thing I would probably want to use a TdM deck, as half of the point for me would be to connect with that history, and I would want to use the type of deck that would have been used in pre-RWS times....

Those 1800s spreads have their fans. @akiiva on this forum posted about using them and even recommended some books on it. if you're good at the search function for this forum you can search 1800s spreads and see the posts

1 hour ago, GreatDane said:

Personally, small.  When I read for others, I generally do a three card Lenormand spread ...

 

I found 5 to be my number for LeNormand. That being said ... Grand Tableau *is* the tradtional spread for LN ... and it uses the whole deck ... but I think LN is very different to tarot. I've never been able to do a GT. My eyes glaze over.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Misterei

[DanielJUK]

I found this old thread of Historic Spreads if it's useful to anyone....

 

 

[akiva]

7 hours ago, Misterei said:

Those 1800s spreads have their fans. @akiiva on this forum posted about using them and even recommended some books on it. if you're good at the search function for this forum you can search 1800s spreads and see the posts

Did someone mention 1800's over complicated spreads? 😂 Had a quick search for my old post but couldn't find it 😅

 

I'll re-recommend some books here:

• Fortune telling by cards - P.R.S Foli

This covers the master method in great detail too, similar to a lenormand Grand Tableau.

• Card fortune-telling - Charles Platt

This covers most of the common methods used back then.

• Telling fortunes by cards - Carelton C. Case

This book covers many methods. A lot I've tried and can't work out, way too much counting!

 

In Waites PKT he also outlines a method using 42 cards and 35 cards in section 8 and 9 IIRC. Though I've never done them! They seem to be good for general futures where no specific question is asked. 

 

There's more books but they all cover very similar methods. The meanings provided for the cards are mostly what changes. All these books are available as PDFs and are out of copywrite. Archive has tons of them. Just search 'cartomancy' and filter to the 19th/20th century (or before if you like Ettiella's stuff).

 

I'm planning on making a post to put these old methods in one place (well the usable ones at least) when I've got some free time.

 

@AlbaTross if you use these methods with TdM please share how you get on. They're usually for playing cards, but there's nothing stopping you from using them with tarot.

One thing that helps is having really simple meanings (like a few keywords). The spreads can get quite large, so you're not reading each card in great detail.  

[Raggydoll]

3 minutes ago, akiva said:

I'm planning on making a post to put these old methods in one place (well the usable ones at least) when I've got some free time.

Please do! 
 

[Tanga]

On 9/18/2023 at 1:36 PM, DanielJUK said:

 

I think if the reading is when you (or the querent) is confused or the situation is unclear, then you should use more cards and clear positions. This is better for clarity. Same also for complicated situations, go big, go detailed and get precise with positions to give more insight. I always do this for complicated love, relationship and emotional readings.

 

If it's a daily reading or smaller in importance or things are clear for you, go smaller. Save your time and energy! I also mostly do 3 cards with no positions a lot. This works well for me. I get the message in a freestyle way and it's less structured but I like my readings to flow in that way. You can get a lot from fewer cards.

 

Each reading needs a different spread depending on what is being asked.

 

I have a tarot friend who just takes one card when needed for her own personal readings. She went through a bad health spell and used one card every so often to see the progress and it was very comforting for her. She also takes one card for how each year will be. Even I think that seems too little but it works perfectly for her as messages, it's her method 🙂 .

THIS.

 

On 9/19/2023 at 5:11 AM, Wyrdkiss said:

I've thought of laminating a deck. How do you feel about the result, vs. the plastic water-resistant RWS they are advertising? 

Never laminated anything (debordering and staining with colour yes). But I do like the 2 water resistant decks that I have.

I wish one could get everything in water resistant card stock.

 

On 9/14/2023 at 5:38 PM, Arania said:

And considering I prefer to use my self made deck which is way larger, 31 greaters and 9 minor suits with 5 court cards each. I work with more elements than the standard 4.

 

You need space. Preferably a whole room. It is a complete ritual, the cards are either laid out in spirals on the floor and you walk through them/between them. If that is not possible a large table will do, with some consecrated figure to represent yourself. Haven't done it in years though, with moving around a lot and never enough space anymore...

See now Arania - I knew there was a reason my most recent piece of Jewellery is sort of your namesake (by pure chance - it's a spider charm and I named her Aragna. Ragno means Spider in Italian - gn is pronounced like nio) and I should therefore pay attention to your posts.

I am fascinated by this idea of a card labyrinth... 🤔

So now this may be how I use a whole load of decks that I like but never actually use to read with...

THANK YOU!

[Arania]

10 hours ago, Tanga said:

So now this may be how I use a whole load of decks that I like but never actually use to read with

Yeah mixing decks works well, especially if you give each of those decks a basic meaning, as in, one is my sorrow, one if my luck, one is my happiness etc.

 

Some witchy rhymes come to mind.

[Barleywine]

For me the "sweet spot" is five cards. I use Elemental Dignities and like to have a center card for that purpose. I use the Celtic Cross a lot for general life-reading purposes but seldom go larger than that. When I create spreads, it depends on the topic and how much I want to know. They range from the "action-reaction-resolution" 3-card design of various types up to 7-to-10 cards. I set my spreads to answer three questions: What do I want to know? (position meanings); How much do I want to know about it? (number of positions); and How do I want it delivered? (spread architecture - line, triangle, square, circle, etc).

Edited January 16, 2024 by Barleywine

[Siri5]

I find large spreads fun and occasionally do them, often quite experimentally, just out of curiosity to see if I will get a half-way coherent message. Have recently used the 21 card Romany spread a fair few times. 
 

That said I often find that they can give unclear messages, simply because you can’t get the same card twice but the same card may be appropriate in several positions. That means you need to make do with almost but not quite the right card, and so forth until you end up with something quite approximate the further you get into the spread. 
 

Ordinarily I often just do 3 card readings, often open ones without positions, then pull three clarifiers. I may consider the bottom of the deck after each draw. 
 

I also rather like the Celtic cross and I find it quite versatile for all sorts of different readings. It can give a lot of insight into an issue and it’s not large enough that the meaning becomes watered down by scarcity of appropriate cards. 

[Misterei]

On 1/18/2024 at 12:42 PM, Siri5 said:

I find large spreads fun and occasionally do them, often quite experimentally, just out of curiosity to see if I will get a half-way coherent message. ...

I often find that they can give unclear messages, simply because you can’t get the same card twice but the same card may be appropriate in several positions. That means you need to make do with almost but not quite the right card, and so forth until you end up with something quite approximate the further you get into the spread.

I got a reading from a fellow last night which used 39+ cards.

Some things were on target at first ... but after a while it was too many cards and possibilities to digest.

I was ok for the first round of 13 cards ... lol we could have stopped there. But he kept going through 3-4 more rounds [each one 13 cards] from the same deck. As you say, toward the end -- as the deck had fewer and fewer cards -- I felt the question: "Is this accurate? Or is it just the cards left over"???

[Natural Mystic Guide]

Most often I do 3-card readings.  Sometimes a series of 3-card readings.  If addressing the same issue, I may not re-shuffle.  If it's addressing another issue, I will re-shuffle and start fresh.  Sometimes I do several 3-card readings using several different decks.  I like -- either through re-shuffling or through using separate decks, to allow the same card to come up again and again.  Sometimes it does.  My next favorite is my Tarot Netivot 4-World reading which uses either 4 cards or 5 if I use a middle card to look at the spiritual lesson in addition to having pulled one card for each of the four kabbalistic worlds. 

[Sar]

1-7 cards of tarot and sometimes I do a 21 Romany spread.

[Marina]

I always prefer small spreads. The 5-card Peladan spread is my to-go spread when I need a reading that is to the point.

 

The biggest spread I use is the Celtic Cross, and I do have great results with it. I just don’t think it suits every situation. 
 

Anything with more than 12 cards is too big for me. Between 3 and 7 is my sweet spot! 

[Misterei]

On 2/13/2024 at 11:36 AM, Serpentia said:

I always prefer small spreads. The 5-card Peladan spread is my to-go spread when I need a reading that is to the point.

The biggest spread I use is the Celtic Cross, and I do have great results with it. I just don’t think it suits every situation. 
Anything with more than 12 cards is too big for me. ...

HUGE fan of Peladan French cross ... although I usually use it self-reflectively.

7-cards is my fave "to the point".

Like you, Celtic cross is my largest ... and anything over 12 my eyes just glaze over.

[CornishMoonlight]

I tend to stick to between 5 - 7 card spreads and only do bigger ones for a really in depth look at very specific situations.   I struggle more with smaller spreads if I’m honest.  3 cards always seem just a bit lacking for me. But it really does depend on what the reading is for.