Sola Busca Museum Quality Kit by Lo Scarabeo

[Eric13]

@McFaire Thank you! That probably saved me $46. (Without taxes)

[bookshop]

Quote

Right off the bat I'm disappointed by the extremely slick slippery finish. Very hard to handle and the high gloss completely negates any historical feel. The finish on the backs is inconsistent. Some are super glossy on the back, others are not. It's as if some of the cards having a different coating on the back than others.

I came here to complain about this! I had been on the fence about which edition of the Sola Busca to get but one of you guys recced the LS edition so I snapped it up, and I really should have done more research first. Not only is the glossy finish kinda cheap, but it makes it really difficult to photograph —which is important for me because I usually do readings online and need my decks to photograph well — as well as difficult to shuffle. I can already tell the cards are sticking together. That's disappointing.

 

That said, they are really vibrant and wow this deck is gorgeous.

[katrinka]

"Museum Quality".
LS really needs to cut the crap. They present this thing like it's one of those premium decks from Berti or Il Meneghello, but it's shiny and plastic-y.
I'm not saying it shouldn't exist, but I do object to the presentation. They should sell it in a tuck box for $20 and stop calling it "museum quality". I'm sure there's a market for a good cheapo Sola Busca.

[Raggydoll]

2 hours ago, bookshop said:

I came here to complain about this! I had been on the fence about which edition of the Sola Busca to get but one of you guys recced the LS edition so I snapped it up, and I really should have done more research first. Not only is the glossy finish kinda cheap, but it makes it really difficult to photograph —which is important for me because I usually do readings online and need my decks to photograph well — as well as difficult to shuffle. I can already tell the cards are sticking together. That's disappointing.

 

That said, they are really vibrant and wow this deck is gorgeous.

I totally get you on the photography part! I get so frustrated with the glare from

glossy cards. It’s especially annoying because I live in the northern Scandinavia and if I am to  be able to take any pics in this darker part of the year then I need to photograph near a window and with all the lights on. And that just does not work with glossy cards. I can’t even use my flash. Grrr... 

 

—— rant over ——-

[Raggydoll]

17 minutes ago, katrinka said:

"Museum Quality".
LS really needs to cut the crap. They present this thing like it's one of those premium decks from Berti or Il Meneghello, but it's shiny and plastic-y.
I'm not saying it shouldn't exist, but I do object to the presentation. They should sell it in a tuck box for $20 and stop calling it "museum quality". I'm sure there's a market for a good cheapo Sola Busca.

I am so grateful for this information. I want a Sola Busca in my collection at some point but this will not be it. It’s too much money for a deck that does not have my preferred type of cardstock. And I don’t want to purchase decks that I know beforehand that I won’t be 100% happy with.

[katrinka]

I just wish they'd stop being pretentious. People had issues with that kickstarter deck of theirs, too.
We all have our limitations. I wouldn't try to pass my pound cake off as a fancy French pastry. 😉

 

[Decan]

A classical deck doesn't work with a laminated cardstock in my opinion.

They did that for the famous I don't remember its name, well..., ah yes, the Visconti Modrone 🥴

But the year before that they published the Etteilla Tarot; I saw a video on YouTube and the problem with this Etteilla was the lamination (it shined like a mirror). No genuine feeling or touch with such a cardstock I'm afraid. But an awareness is always possible! I don't remember the saint to pray for the hopeless cases, Saint Jude?

 

Edited September 28, 2019 by Decan

[Raggydoll]

33 minutes ago, Decan said:

 I don't remember the saint to pray for the hopeless cases, Saint Jude?

 

Or perhaps

 

 

😆😆😆

 

Sorry, I promise to behave now!! 

 

I honestly don’t think that Lo Scarabeo make poor quality decks - far from it! I just think they made a not so good decision regarding the cardstock/finish on these two historical reproductions. I have not had any issues with their decks in the past and I find them to be of much higher quality than, let’s say Schiffer or Llewellyn. I also know that some people actually prefer glossy card as it makes the colors stand out. But for historical decks then I’d say that it’s generally never a good choice. 

[reall]

1 hour ago, Decan said:

A classical deck doesn't work with a laminated cardstock in my opinion.

They did that for the famous I don't remember its name, well..., ah yes, the Visconti Modrone 🥴

But the year before that they published the Etteilla Tarot; I saw a video on YouTube and the problem with this Etteilla was the lamination (it shined like a mirror). No genuine feeling or touch with such a cardstock I'm afraid. But an awareness is always possible! I don't remember the saint to pray for the hopeless cases, Saint Jude?

 

I second this! I was wtf when I got my Etteilla it's sticky & plasticky & have no purpose at all! I understand VM it serve purpose to protect gold foil but otherwise it's totally misleading calling it *museum quality unless they Had plastic lamination 100yrs ago>x,x lol

 

p.s tnx4 adding these prayers cards to my wishlist!^^ lol

[reall]

32 minutes ago, Raggydoll said:

 

Or perhaps

 

 

😆😆😆

 

Sorry, I promise to behave now!! 

 

I honestly don’t think that Lo Scarabeo make poor quality decks - far from it! I just think they made a not so good decision regarding the cardstock/finish on these two historical reproductions. I have not had any issues with their decks in the past and I find them to be of much higher quality than, let’s say Schiffer or Llewellyn. I also know that some people actually prefer glossy card as it makes the colors stand out. But for historical decks then I’d say that it’s generally never a good choice. 

lol Epic gif!^^ ;D

[katrinka]

44 minutes ago, Raggydoll said:

Or perhaps

 

 

😆😆😆

And take out one of those "Thank you Baphomet for prayers answered" ads in the "Announcements" segment of your local classifieds.

Quote

Sorry, I promise to behave now!! 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Quote

 

I honestly don’t think that Lo Scarabeo make poor quality decks - far from it! I just think they made a not so good decision regarding the cardstock/finish on these two historical reproductions. I have not had any issues with their decks in the past and I find them to be of much higher quality than, let’s say Schiffer or Llewellyn. I also know that some people actually prefer glossy card as it makes the colors stand out. But for historical decks then I’d say that it’s generally never a good choice. 

The stuff they aren't trying to fob off as "museum quality" is actually quite good. Their Vera Sibilla (they call it the "Everyday Oracle") has wonderful stock - durable yet flexy, almost leather-like. I think I paid $8 for my copy.

Edited September 28, 2019 by katrinka

[Raggydoll]

39 minutes ago, katrinka said:

 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

OMG those sad bananas make me feel so guilty!! I eat banana smoothies every day 😭

 

And I just dread that the Queen herself (that would be the honorable @Little Fang) will stop by and reprimand me! “Raggydoll! You are a moderator and must lead with a good example - and now you are worse than the rest!!” 😁😁😁 But it IS Saturday so she might just excuse me, especially if I punish myself a bit first.

 

 

There! Feels so much better! 

39 minutes ago, katrinka said:

The stuff they aren't trying to fob off as "museum quality" is actually quite good. Their Vera Sibilla (they call it the "Everyday Oracle") has wonderful stock - durable yet flexy, almost leather-like. I think I paid $8 for my copy.

I agree! That deck has great cardstock!! It sort of reminds me of the cardstock of certain vintage decks of playing cards. I find that those old decks often hold up way better than newer and more expensive tarot cards. 

 

It cant be easy for the producers these days. I mean, no one used to mention cardstock back in the days, and they could go with  whatever they wanted. Now almost everyone has an opinion and high expectations - only that it’s rarely the same opinions or expectations 😆 If we all just could agree to like matte or semi-matte cards 😁 But I know that the cardstock I like is critiqued by some (mainly those that riffle shuffle and don’t like thick matte cards). So perhaps the ideal situation was that everyone also agreed to only do overhand shuffle ☺️

[Little Fang]

@Raggydoll

[bookshop]

lol @Raggydoll i was just telling a friend last night that a year ago (when i was still deep into deck collecting, but not *this* deep!), I would have been like, "I can't believe anyone is so picky that they care what kind of card stock something has," and now i'm like "are you kidding me with this glossy unshuffle-able nonsense where is the fine linen finish i demand" or whatever ahaha

 

I avoid LS decks because I don't like their borders/languages thing, so this is only my second — the III Millennium being the first, it arrived 2 weeks ag so I'm still breaking it in. But I love the card stock quality of that deck, it's got a really nice smooth satin finish and i'm not a riffle shuffler but it would be a good riffle deck.

 

And actually, stylistically, I feel like it would be amazing to read with these two decks together, I bet they'd work together really well, so maybe i'll write this off as a befitting stylistic weirdness.

 

[Saturn Celeste]

On 9/22/2019 at 11:07 PM, offramp said:

I would say that they are entirely for study: they are too thick and large to shuffle for a reading.

That's a good point.  I have the anima antiqua Sola Busca and it is very stiff.  Maybe for the Museum version they made the cards easier to shuffle.  I'm still not going to break the seal on my museum deck though.  If I sell a Sola Busca, it will be that one.

[AJ-ish/Sharyn]

my LoS museum quality Sola Busca was waiting for me when I got home from vacation. 

Oddly still no reviews on Amazon. Definitely shiny. Cards are 3" X 5.75"

Clear print with vibrant colors. 

Majors are not modern style so picking it up and reading as tarot a no go. 

The book gives a good overview, many are Roman era who-be's and celebrities or LoS best guess. 

Shown are FoolMato, portrayed as sinister

III, Lenpio, possibly Lenius Strabo, suggested connotation as visually impaired.

X, Venturio, likely Titus Vetrius Calvinus circa 330 bce, connotation touched by fortune.

minors have 2 pages super general overview,

6's, harmony/understanding/peace, 10's Perfection/ending, time to restart

8's Order/competition/conclusion

Shown are 6 of swords

10 of wands

8 of coins

 

I enjoy oracles, so many use this as such. 

The kit was $35.00, not much different from any other kit, but in the future I won't buy a LoS

"museum quality" publication with the expectation of getting something special. 

 

[Saturn Celeste]

15 minutes ago, AJ-ish/Sharyn said:

I enjoy oracles, so many use this as such. 

The kit was $35.00, not much different from any other kit, but in the future I won't buy a LoS

"museum quality" publication with the expectation of getting something special. 

Thank you @AJ-ish/Sharyn for your input!  I can see the glossiness of the card in your photo.  Using the cards as an oracle is a great idea!