Scenic Pips vs. Non Scenic Pips - which do you prefer and why?

[Misterei]

Definitions:

Scenic Pips like Sola Busca or RWS feature a full illustration on each Pip [number] card.

Non-scenic decks [often called Pip decks] are generally Tarocchi or TdM. The number cards have only suit + number with maybe a simple decoration.

 

I cut my teeth on RWS ... and for years I only read scenic pips. RWS style.

In the past few years that changed. My tarots collection is balanced between scenic and non scenic.

 

I can't say I have a solid preference. It's situational. For most clients I prefer the scenic pips so the client can "see" the meaning.

For myself? For some clients and some questions? I might prefer non scenics.

 

What I've discovered is that I'm REALLY PICKY about scenic decks! If an illustration violates my interpretation of the card ... the deck gets evicted... no matter how much I like the artwork.

 

I'm much looser with Tarocchi, TdM, playing card hybrids. Less to go wrong [as it were] if the deck designer is feeling creative 😉  I find historic decks easy to read. People weren't so self-aware about Tarot. They were just cards. Sometimes for games, sometimes for fortune telling.

In the plethora of new scenic decks ... I find too many personal agendas and style trends invading the illustrations.

 

So I'm much LESS picky about pip decks. I know I can read pretty much any one as there's a delicious neutrality to them.

I don't care for most TdM ... I definitely prefer Tarocchi or Hybrid decks ... but I can still read any historic TdM you hand me ... b/c no agenda. Just cards.

 

What about YOU?

Do you prefer scenic or non scenic or read equally with both?

How do you feel about the two styles?

Edited December 30, 2023 by Misterei

[Eugenie]

I would love to learn to read non-scenic pips, to be able to use less "author-dependent" decks, if I can say so. This is also one of the reasons I am interested in divination with playing cards. No intuitive reading based on the picture and the vision of the author, but rather just having what the fate dealt you and what the assigned meaning is. This is not to say that I am not interested in intuitive reading - I am - but I would love to be able to use both. 

I only have one deck with non-scenic pips, it is the Ancient Tarots of Bologna (photo from  AT ), and I am not even trying to work with it yet because I am still in my learning curve with the RWS and don't want to get too burdened by learning different systems. If I feel no progress, I may lose motivation. So for now I just take it out to look at and shuffle. The wands and swords look very similar to me, I guess I will need an easier to read deck when I start learning TdM-style reading. But I like this deck, the characters have very benign faces, it is a warm deck I think.

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2023 by Eugenie

[Misterei]

24 minutes ago, Eugenie said:

... one of the reasons I am interested in divination with playing cards. No intuitive reading based on the picture and the vision of the author, but rather just having what the fate dealt you and what the assigned meaning is ...

now this is an interesting statement.

To me it's opposite. I feel more imprisoned by the pip illustration ... and more freely intuitive with the non scenics.

But that being said ... I have a solid foundation in numerology which is probably one reason I find non scenics easier. Just give me a number and spare me all the "extras". Not everyone reads this way. And as a beginner I needed those RWS illustrations to help me learn the cards.

 

And yes ... that Bolognese deck is BEAUTIFUL.

Edited December 30, 2023 by Misterei

[Eugenie]

1 hour ago, Misterei said:

now this is an interesting statement.

To me it's opposite. I feel more imprisoned by the pip illustration ... and more freely intuitive with the non scenics.

But that being said ... I have a solid foundation in numerology which is probably one reason I find non scenics easier. Just give me a number and spare me all the "extras". Not everyone reads this way. And as a beginner I needed those RWS illustrations to help me learn the cards.

 

And yes ... that Bolognese deck is BEAUTIFUL.

I wanted to say that I often see statements that it is better to read intuitively just based on the picture that you see and the feelings it evokes, rather than based on what you read and learned and know about this card, and to me sometimes it gets to the point that some decks seem to be... how do I put it... very different and they mostly reflect the feelings and views of their creators and not so much the traditional meanings, maybe? So maybe I could read them somehow but not sure if it would be a tarot reading (I don't know if I am making myself clear here but hope you will understand).  

I believe you wrote somewhere that you combine knowledge of foundations and theory with intuition and you can close your eyes and see the (classic ones, I assume) cards in all details. This is what I see as my ideal goal now (I am certainly not sure this can be achieved but it is my ideal destination) - knowing the theory and combining it with intuition. On the other hand, I know so little at this point that I really have few opinions and I can only guess how my journey will unfold, but you are my role model. 

I am learning now on a Centennial RWS and I find it way more convenient as I can use lots of books as a reference, whereas the first deck I bought was the Spacious Tarot, and I love it, but it was just laying on a shelf for months as I wasn't sure how to start with it, despite lots of excellent guidance from the creators. It is RWS based but I feel that for me it is better to learn on a classic deck first. 

 

PS But honestly I know almost nothing at this point so people please don't bash me on the head if I said something silly, lol. 

Edited December 30, 2023 by Eugenie

[Rose Lalonde]

I prefer what I've seen called 'moody minors'.  Between pip and full scenes (like in the Thoth, Tabula Mundi, Asherah, Jonassa Jaus, Magickal, Spirit, etc. ) -- But I love the look of the Madenie TdM and am comfortable reading with it.  Not because I don't have an agenda (I totally have an agenda 😆).  I rarely read TdM for others, though, so there's nobody to mind that.

[Natural Mystic Guide]

I mostly read with illustrated pips.  I am looking forward to digging in with the TdM.  In working with clients, I do prefer illustrated pips because it seems that these are the easiest for someone to relate to.  I am very picky, though, about the scenes.  I don't like negative or scary vibes.  I use reversals and that's how I can move into challenging or shadow aspects of a card.  It's all interesting.  And, it's all good.

[Raggydoll]

These days, I’m all about pip decks. I love to explore different systems and look at keywords from various older traditions. I enjoy both playing cards, tarocchi and tdM. Lately though, I have been very into antique German, Swiss and Portuguese playing cards.  Oh, and bolognese decks! And fortune telling cards 😁

 

[Guest]

I vastly prefer scenic pips simply because I like stories. A fully-illustrated deck seems like an anthology with forty extra tales attached. They'll be my first choice. 

 

But I'm also very partial to some decks that have minor illustrations and stylized suit designs, like the Minchiate and the Renaissance Tarot by Williams. Love love love them! 

[Misterei]

3 hours ago, Eugenie said:

I am learning now on a Centennial RWS ...

The absolute best deck for learning in my opinion. LOL years of study makes it possible to "see" every detail of RWS with eyes closed. I've been at this 45 years ... it would be pathetic if I did not develop this skill 😇

Meanwhile, the more you study a card the faster it happens.  Obsession is your friend 😉

And I want to amend what I said ... for the scenic decks I like [Divine Deco for example] I *do* get intuitive hits from the pictures. Scenic pips sometimes feel limiting and other times feel intuitive. It's situational.

2 hours ago, Rose Lalonde said:

I prefer what I've seen called 'moody minors'.  Between pip and full scenes (like in the Thoth, Tabula Mundi, Asherah, Jonassa Jaus, Magickal, Spirit, etc. ) ...

Good point. Thoth style falls somewhere in between scenic and non scenic.

Edited December 30, 2023 by Misterei

[Raggydoll]

I think you can absolutely read pip decks intuitively. If a person is used to symbolic divination then a pattern of symbols, like on a deck of playing cards, can be really informative and evocative. I think it helps to practice looking at whatever is in front of you. Don’t come with preconceived notions, be curious about what messages that are waiting to be noticed. And ask yourself what the pattern on the cards remind you of, when seen in the context of the question. It’s a bit like scrying or divining with tea leaves. If you are too occupied with remembering keywords then you won’t see what’s in front of you! 

[akiva]

7 hours ago, Misterei said:

What about YOU?

Do you prefer scenic or non scenic or read equally with both?

How do you feel about the two styles?

For me I much prefer pip/playing cards/tarocchi/minchiate style decks by a long shot. I probably used RWS for about 2 months when I was new to tarot before switching over to TdM.

 

What I love most about non scenic decks is the versatility. One day I might use Ettiella's meanings (he's the forefather of pip deck reading after all), another day I might delve deeper into pythagorean number symbolism. Sometimes even a mix of both come about, it's so freeing and there's so much room to experiment!

 

Another factor is that you can literally reduce most of these decks down and get a totally different reading style/system out of it (tarocchi/piquet) without necessarily having to buy new decks. It's easy to become a collector of systems then, rather than decks, which saves on a lot of money! 😆

 

Things cross over too. If you read old-style cartomancy books and find a meaning that sticks, it can carry across nearly all your pip decks. Whereas with scenic decks (as has been mentioned) you're kind of stuck to the authors agenda. Yes you can interpret the image freely... but I much prefer using my intuition on number symbolism rather than image symbolism itself, on a deck that is a blank slate 😁

[Raggydoll]

38 minutes ago, akiva said:

For me I much prefer pip/playing cards/tarocchi/minchiate style decks by a long shot. I probably used RWS for about 2 months when I was new to tarot before switching over to TdM.

 

What I love most about non scenic decks is the versatility. One day I might use Ettiella's meanings (he's the forefather of pip deck reading after all), another day I might delve deeper into pythagorean number symbolism. Sometimes even a mix of both come about, it's so freeing and there's so much room to experiment!

 

Another factor is that you can literally reduce most of these decks down and get a totally different reading style/system out of it (tarocchi/piquet) without necessarily having to buy new decks. It's easy to become a collector of systems then, rather than decks, which saves on a lot of money! 😆

 

Things cross over too. If you read old-style cartomancy books and find a meaning that sticks, it can carry across nearly all your pip decks. Whereas with scenic decks (as has been mentioned) you're kind of stuck to the authors agenda. Yes you can interpret the image freely... but I much prefer using my intuition on number symbolism rather than image symbolism itself, on a deck that is a blank slate 😁

I so agree with all that you say! 😀 And I too prefer to use intuition regarding number symbolism. The thing I wanted to point out was that it is possible to read patterns intuitively. 
 

I think everyone will be naturally inclined to interpret cards a certain way, and the only way to know is to try. And I also think it’s important to not compare oneself to others and not take other peoples experiences as a rule for how card reading works or for what cards can and cannot do. Maybe the deck will not work a certain way for one person, but it could well work that way for another. So if anyone says “tarot doesn’t work that way”, then find out for yourself if it does! 😊

[akiva]

20 minutes ago, Raggydoll said:

I so agree with all that you say! 😀 And I too prefer to use intuition regarding number symbolism. The thing I wanted to point out was that it is possible to read patterns intuitively. 

I totally agree with the patterns thing! Sometimes you can't help but notice the way the vines or leaves embrace a suit symbol, or the flower trapped in the center of the 8 of Swords. Or how the 2 of Swords represents a vesica piscis, and how the walls get thicker as you progress down the suit of Swords to the 10! It all plays a role in a reading if (as you said) you're open to receiving those messages!

 

35 minutes ago, Raggydoll said:

Maybe the deck will not work a certain way for one person, but it could well work that way for another. So if anyone says “tarot doesn’t work that way”, then find out for yourself if it does! 😊

All we can do as readers is try and see if something works or not.

Reading styles are a bit like fingerprints, in the sense that they're unique to each person. You can pick stuff up and learn from others, but ultimately the way we read as individuals ends up conforming to our own ideals/needs/etc.

 

You're so right about not comparing ourselves to others too, it's one of the quickest ways to unhappiness/feeling unfulfilled!

[GreatDane]

I'm very RWS, so images. Just what flows for me.  I think there are MANY beautiful decks with pip cards, but I work with what I feel drawn to read with. 

[Misterei]

11 hours ago, akiva said:

... Reading styles are a bit like fingerprints, in the sense that they're unique to each person.

What a perfect analogy!

We all have hands with fingers [the mechanics of cartomancy] ... but the fingerprint [reading style] is unique.

[akiva]

1 hour ago, Misterei said:

What a perfect analogy!

We all have hands with fingers [the mechanics of cartomancy] ... but the fingerprint [reading style] is unique.

You definitely put it better! 😆 I like the idea of the mechanics of cartomancy being represented by the hand/fingers. Very succinct! 🤚

[Scandinavianhermit]

The only scenic-pip deck that works for me is Dame Fortune's Wheel Tarot.

For contemplative purposes, I like the Rose Tarot, too, mainly because of the trumps in the latter, so it doesn't really count.

Otherwise, I prefer CBD Tarot (non-scenic, of course).

[Misterei]

12 hours ago, Scandinavianhermit said:

The only scenic-pip deck that works for me is Dame Fortune's Wheel Tarot.

For contemplative purposes, I like the Rose Tarot, too, mainly because of the trumps in the latter, so it doesn't really count.

Otherwise, I prefer CBD Tarot (non-scenic, of course).

Ah! Both are excellent decks although I seldom use them. A sort of a hybrid between RWS and TdM.

Thanks for reminding me about them. Both seem to have a great deal of thought and care in their creation as opposed to style and trendy agendas I see in many modern scenics.

[Scandinavianhermit]

Yes, I would call Dame Fortune's Wheel Tarot and Rose Tarot 'anti-trendy'! My entire tarot taste (DFWT, Rose Tarot, CBD Tarot, original Wirth 1889) is 'anti-trendy' and slightly French.

 

In the 1780s, Etteilla reshuffled the order of trumps (and redesigned their visual content, in part under the influence of Comte de Mellet and Minchiate Francesi), but posthumously the key-words he assigned to the pip-cards became more influential, than his redesigned trumps. When Paul Huson designed Dame Fortune's Wheel Tarot, he intended to combine the familiar Milanese order of trumps, trump-motifs resembling 15th century north Italian hand-painted tarots, and pips the scenery of which alluded to Etteilla's (not Waite's) key-words. 

[Misterei]

1 hour ago, Scandinavianhermit said:

Yes, I would call Dame Fortune's Wheel Tarot and Rose Tarot 'anti-trendy'! My entire tarot taste (DFWT, Rose Tarot, CBD Tarot, original Wirth 1889) is 'anti-trendy' and slightly French.

LOL my taste runs toward anti-trendy and Italian 😆

I must admit everything about Etteilla just makes my eyes glaze over. *sigh*