Hello,
Here is a comparison between 5 tarots de Marseille that I occasionally use.

 

I won't describe the differences between them. You can find videos on Youtube showing each card.
I will rather tell how they look in my eyes and how it feels for me to draw cards with them.

 

As an example, here is the same draw with each of them:

 

 

Left:

-Le véritable Tarot de Marseille, by Kris Hadar
I like the deep rich colours of this one. If you get one, try to find the edition with the white box. The one with red and white box has colder colours (that's the one used in the above picture).

 

Right:

-Le Tarot de Marseille, by Colette Sylvestre (facsimile of Grimaud 1930)
This one has very simple and standardized colours. Both this one and Kris Hadar's one has blue-haired characters. 

 

 

-Tarot de Marseille - Paris 1890 CA (facsimile of tarot de Besançon, Grimaud 1890)
This is actually a Tarot de Besançon rather than a tarot de Marseille, with Juno and Jupiter instead of the Popess and Pope.
This version, by Lo Scarabeo, has quite dark colours, (although well-balanced), compared to other facsimile, or originals than we can see on the web, that look usually brighter.

 

 

Left:

-Marseille Vintage Tarot, by Anna Morsucci, Mattia Ottolini and Chiara Demagistris
A very standard one, based on the Conver, with artificially stained background.

 

Right:

-Pierre Madenié 1709, facsimile by Marianne Costa
One of the finest historical tarots de Marseille.

 

Although these decks are all based on the same design, each of them has a very distinc feeling. 
In the next message, I'll try to illustrate how different they look for me. 

 

 

Edited March 22, 20251 yr by Pio2001

When I read Kris Hadar's Véritable tarot de Marseille, it is as if the cards look like this to me:

 

 

I see vibrant, deep, beautiful colours. It is a pleasure to look at it.

My attention is somewhat distracted by how it looks rather than by the meaning of the cards.

 

When I read with Colette Sylvestre tarot de Marseille (Grimaud 1930), on the other hand, the cards look like this to me:

 

 

This is the exact opposite of the previous one. I see abstract concepts put down of cards.

The colours are so simple that I forget about them and immediately read the meaning of the cards, rather than looking at their appearance.

 

Then, when I read the Grimaud 1890 (tarot de Besançon), the cards look a bit like this to me:

 

 

I see oldish pictures with a classical look. This deck looks ancient and noble. 

When I read Pierre Madenié's 1709 tarot, the cards look like this to me:

 

Worn-out figures from a forgotten past, sometimes primitive (especially cups), sometimes mesmerising.

 

I skipped the Vintage deck, as I've got no idea to illustrate it. 

 

 

Here are the tarots used in this comparison:

 

 

I've got two other tarots de Marseille that I didn't represent here.

The standard one from Lo Scarabeo. I don't use it because I find its colours too bright.

And a facsimile of the Conver 1760. I don't use it either. I prefer by far the Madenié, that is nearly identical, but with much better drawings.

 

I don't have the Jodo-Camoin, nor the Conver-Ben-Dov.