Unboxings and First Impressions

[Ziev]

2 hours ago, katrinka said:

If you love the deck, by all means hang on to it and use it from time to time!

 

Yeah, that's a good idea. 

 

On another note, I recently got the Wildera Lenormand. I am really diggin the sepia look with the images. Pretty straight forward imo. Instead of extra cards the artist named the man as masculine and the woman as feminine. I thought it was interesting to be sure. 

 

I think my main go-to deck is the Maybe Lenormand without the extra cards. 

[Decan]

6 hours ago, Ziev said:

On another note, I recently got the Wildera Lenormand. I am really diggin the sepia look with the images. Pretty straight forward imo. Instead of extra cards the artist named the man as masculine and the woman as feminine. I thought it was interesting to be sure.

Oh, I didn't know this one, isn't it a squirrel which rides the horse on the Rider? 😁

I saw as well beautiful stars with a moon in the sky above the House and the same for Mountain... hmm hmm, lol but the sepia tones are pleasant, I recognize it!

Edited November 26, 2021 by Decan

[katrinka]

5 hours ago, Decan said:

Oh, I didn't know this one, isn't it a squirrel which rides the horse on the Rider? 😁

The squirrel is the third party in an affair. He's a seductive squirrel. But the Child is a fawn, so we were already well on the way to uncanny valley.
See my previous advice on wonky decks. 😁

I'm not throwing stones. My two favorite wonky decks are much wonkier:

https://www.etsy.com/listing/973536924/the-beatles-lenormand

 

https://fennario.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/the-legendary-lenormand/

 

Still, I think I should make it a point today to start a thread of non- and minimally-wonky Lenormands.
 

[stephanelli]

17 hours ago, gregory said:

How's the description on that Archer card ???  

Apparently the Archer is looking into the sky according to the description...the sky is in a weird place if so 😆

I've read all the intro bits and pieces.  The bit about the Wheel of the Year and the how it relates to the cards I'm still trying to get my head round.

 

I'm on the major arcana now (done 0 - 8).  The individual cards bits are interesting and helpful so far in being able to explain what the intent behind the cards, although I agree that not all the descriptions match up completely.  I've not looked at the Greenwood much, but I had a look online at some the cards I was struggling to find things in and discovered that they were much more prominent in the Greenwood deck.  For example Venus is mentioned as being in the Ancestor card, but I'm pretty sure its not actually there.

 

That said, my first impression is still favourable and it is informative and helps me work out some of the idea behind the Wildwood.

I think I'll be employing my usual method of getting a new deck (that is, read the book thoroughly, making notes of anything unusual or requiring more research, gradually do the research, start reading with it and keep notes and take it from there).  But first impressions of the book are still good, even though it references and refers to the Greenwood more than I feel is strictly necessary.

 

 

[gregory]

Exactly. That fits the Greenwood card. (Crap image; sorry.)

The Wildwood one - no.

 

Ryan has been so very sloppy.

[stephanelli]

Very much agreed.

I realise I'm way behind the times on all this, but I do feel sorry for the artist here.

 

[DanielJUK]

If you need it @stephanelli there are other published books about the Wildwood as well as great online card by card resources. The book is still full of Greenwood card mistakes really. I bought as an ebook (it's a book as well), "A Year in the Wildwood" by Alison Cross and it's her spiritual journey with the deck. She was co-chair of the Tarot Association of the British Isles for ages. That book does go card by card and also has an official FB group which you can study alongside it with.

 

I want to love this deck but the cards are such a mixed bag. I adore some cards and some cards are just terrible. For example the Disney cartoonish salmon in the card images. Yet I adore some, the Majors look great like The Seer, The Mirror and others. The artwork is really inconsistent which I find tricky when reading with it 😞 I want to love it but that's my issue with it.

[stephanelli]

1 minute ago, DanielJUK said:

If you need it @stephanelli there are other published books about the Wildwood as well as great online card by card resources. The book is still full of Greenwood card mistakes really. I bought as an ebook (it's a book as well), "A Year in the Wildwood" by Alison Cross and it's her spiritual journey with the deck. She was co-chair of the Tarot Association of the British Isles for ages. That book does go card by card and also has an official FB group which you can study alongside it with.

I've been having a look at the book by Alison Cross.  I came across it on a blog post of Benebell Wen's.  Very much considering it but haven't fully decided yet!

1 minute ago, DanielJUK said:

I want to love this deck but the cards are such a mixed bag. I adore some cards and some cards are just terrible. For example the Disney cartoonish salmon in the card images. Yet I adore some, the Majors look great like The Seer, The Mirror and others. The artwork is really inconsistent which I find tricky when reading with it 😞 I want to love it but that's my issue with it.

The Disney cartoonish vibe really doesn't bother me, actually it was one of the things that drew me towards the artwork (Bambi in the 4 (?) of Stones anyone!)

What do you find inconsistent about it?  I haven't studied it in great detail yet but I haven't noticed anything obvious just yet...

[katrinka]

Today another forgotten deck preordered months ago landed on the porch. (And I was just talking about wonky decks here. "Talk about the devil and there he is.")

This one is called Mystical Medleys. It's designed to look like vintage cartoons. I love 1930's stuff. There was the risk of getting stuck with a kiddie deck, but I took that chance since 1930's cartoons were actually not purely kiddie stuff, at least until the Hays Code came along and "saved" society from such travesties as Betty Boop's garter.

The box is quite heavy and substantial. There's an outer box with a firm magnetic closure on the bottom, and those half moon "grab holes":

 

And there's an inner box, and a little hardcover guidebook. They really went all out with the packaging. (And even with all that, it's inexpensive.)

 

The guidebook is really bad, though. It's ALL filler: jumped-up card descriptions and unsolicited generic advice. Oh well. It keeps the cards from rattling around in the box.

 

See all those black dots? They're on the cards, too. They don't bother me, but I really don't see the point. They're obviously meant to mimic newspaper print. But if they were going for a newspaper comic effect, they should have colored in the images with dots instead of solid colors: https://legionofandy.com/2016/08/26/ben-day-dots-part-8-1930s-to-1950s-the-golden-age-of-comics/

If, OTOH, they were mimicking animated cartoons of the era, they should have left the dots off and used black and white images. Color film existed in the Pre Code era, but it was rarely used. These cards would have been sublime in black and white.

So there's an overwhelmingly inauthentic feel to this deck. But it does have a saving grace: irreverence!

 

It follows RWS closely. They even got the snail on the 9 of Pents.

 

 

Some of the images seem to be taken from the same template. Note the little couples on these:

 

All the Aces feature the cloud that the hand normally emerges from. It's always a gray storm cloud, no matter the suit. And, since it's a purely silly-a*s deck, you get not one squirrel card, but two:

 

The stock is stiff and sturdy. But it has no slip whatsoever, and the cards stick together. Mine have already had a rendezvous with the fanning powder, and they're OK now.

Is it a great art deck? No. (I wish Bobby London was into Tarot, he's a wizard at vintage-style stuff. So is Robert Crumb.) A great reading deck? Of course not. But it looks like it could be fun at parties. 😁
 

Edited November 26, 2021 by katrinka

[Ziev]

7 hours ago, katrinka said:

He's a seductive squirrel.

I almost spit my coffee out when I read this! 😂 

 

56 minutes ago, stephanelli said:

he Disney cartoonish vibe really doesn't bother me, actually it was one of the things that drew me towards the artwork (Bambi in the 4 (?) of Stones anyone!)

I was drawn to the images as well. I seriously love every card in it. I've never fully seen the Greenwood but I'd image whichever deck you saw first and loved would be compared to that one. 😃

 

 

[katrinka]

41 minutes ago, Ziev said:

I've never fully seen the Greenwood

 

We can fix that!
You can download the entire deck in pdf form here - with the artist's blessings:

https://voicewithinthecards.wordpress.com/greenwood-tarot-book/

 

From there, you can cut out the images and upload them at https://www.printerstudio.com/ or https://www.makeplayingcards.com/ and voilà - you've got a Greenwood. 😁

[stephanelli]

4 hours ago, katrinka said:

Today another forgotten deck preordered months ago landed on the porch. (And I was just talking about wonky decks here. "Talk about the devil and there he is.")

This one is called Mystical Medleys. It's designed to look like vintage cartoons. I love 1930's stuff. There was the risk of getting stuck with a kiddie deck, but I took that chance since 1930's cartoons were actually not purely kiddie stuff, at least until the Hays Code came along and "saved" society from such travesties as Betty Boop's garter.

The box is quite heavy and substantial. There's an outer box with a firm magnetic closure on the bottom, and those half moon "grab holes":

 

And there's an inner box, and a little hardcover guidebook. They really went all out with the packaging. (And even with all that, it's inexpensive.)

 

The guidebook is really bad, though. It's ALL filler: jumped-up card descriptions and unsolicited generic advice. Oh well. It keeps the cards from rattling around in the box.

 

See all those black dots? They're on the cards, too. They don't bother me, but I really don't see the point. They're obviously meant to mimic newspaper print. But if they were going for a newspaper comic effect, they should have colored in the images with dots instead of solid colors: https://legionofandy.com/2016/08/26/ben-day-dots-part-8-1930s-to-1950s-the-golden-age-of-comics/

If, OTOH, they were mimicking animated cartoons of the era, they should have left the dots off and used black and white images. Color film existed in the Pre Code era, but it was rarely used. These cards would have been sublime in black and white.

So there's an overwhelmingly inauthentic feel to this deck. But it does have a saving grace: irreverence!

 

It follows RWS closely. They even got the snail on the 9 of Pents.

 

 

Some of the images seem to be taken from the same template. Note the little couples on these:

 

All the Aces feature the cloud that the hand normally emerges from. It's always a gray storm cloud, no matter the suit. And, since it's a purely silly-a*s deck, you get not one squirrel card, but two:

 

The stock is stiff and sturdy. But it has no slip whatsoever, and the cards stick together. Mine have already had a rendezvous with the fanning powder, and they're OK now.

Is it a great art deck? No. (I wish Bobby London was into Tarot, he's a wizard at vintage-style stuff. So is Robert Crumb.) A great reading deck? Of course not. But it looks like it could be fun at parties. 😁
 

I'm totally in love with the tree stump in the Ace of Swords!

Such a weird but oddly appealing deck!

I hope you have some fun times with it!

[stephanelli]

3 hours ago, Ziev said:

I was drawn to the images as well. I seriously love every card in it. I've never fully seen the Greenwood but I'd image whichever deck you saw first and loved would be compared to that one. 😃

 

I've seen the Greenwood online, honestly the art style doesn't appeal to me.  Just my personal taste.  I can see why it does appeal to others though.

2 hours ago, katrinka said:

 

We can fix that!
You can download the entire deck in pdf form here - with the artist's blessings:

https://voicewithinthecards.wordpress.com/greenwood-tarot-book/

 

From there, you can cut out the images and upload them at https://www.printerstudio.com/ or https://www.makeplayingcards.com/ and voilà - you've got a Greenwood. 😁

Whoa.  🤯

Actually this is great and very helpful because I'm trying to work out the cards and comparing them to the Greenwood is helpful when I can't find a detail mentioned in the book on the actual card!

[Ziev]

2 hours ago, katrinka said:

 

We can fix that!
You can download the entire deck in pdf form here - with the artist's blessings:

https://voicewithinthecards.wordpress.com/greenwood-tarot-book/

 

From there, you can cut out the images and upload them at https://www.printerstudio.com/ or https://www.makeplayingcards.com/ and voilà - you've got a Greenwood. 😁

Awesome! Thanks for this!!!

[DanielJUK]

15 hours ago, stephanelli said:

What do you find inconsistent about it?  I haven't studied it in great detail yet but I haven't noticed anything obvious just yet...

 

I am only saying my personal view of it of course but the artwork is inconsistent, some of it is excellent, others do not portray the meaning of the card. The Majors are excellent and the deck is worth it for those but the Minors feel a lot less in quality apart from some excellent cards. The 6 of Swords with the boat sailing away is great. It's a mixed bag for me and this makes it hard in a reading. I have been stuck on one of the not so great cards in a reading trying to work it out for ages in an exchange once 😞

 

There is an excellent study guide still up on AT, I have it bookmarked still. It might give you some help whilst we build our study group here 🙂 It's over here. It sadly never completed the whole deck but it's useful for what it is.

[ilweran]

19 hours ago, stephanelli said:

I've seen the Greenwood online, honestly the art style doesn't appeal to me.  Just my personal taste.  I can see why it does appeal to others though.

Whoa.  🤯

Actually this is great and very helpful because I'm trying to work out the cards and comparing them to the Greenwood is helpful when I can't find a detail mentioned in the book on the actual card!

 

If you go any further in comparing them the the minor arcana card order for the wheel of the year is completely different. It was ages before I noticed 😂

 

 

9 hours ago, DanielJUK said:

I am only saying my personal view of it of course but the artwork is inconsistent, some of it is excellent, others do not portray the meaning of the card. The Majors are excellent and the deck is worth it for those but the Minors feel a lot less in quality apart from some excellent cards.

 

I agree. The Seer is amazing. The Two of Cups makes me laugh as, to me, it looks silly.

 

And I strongly object to The Woodward but that's a personal gripe, I think the change from the Greenwood Strength card was a major error.

[Decan]

Below are 2 pics of my Dark Mansion Tarot that I received 2 days ago.

 

 

My first impressions are very good!

Here for this version the card stock is matt, and the edges are matt gold (they look more honey than shiny gold). The cards are sturdy and it is a deck that will last over time I think.

Likely the standard 4th edition that they are selling currently has golden edges more shiny and maybe too the cards slide better, but it looks glossy so it's a choice. The oversized edition is great in my opinion, I probably would have regretted if I had chosen the standard size.

What more? It follows the RWS system with slight variations on a few cards, but which make sense for me. The 3 of Swords could refer (looking at the picture) to a painful memory (you see the card on my pic above), the 2 of Wands to find the right balance, the 4 of Wands looks like a proposal while the 6 of Wands shows a marriage.

As well the 4 of Swords looks like a mourning, but all these are logical.

Not a disappointment at all!

Edited December 26, 2021 by Decan

[WizardintheWoods]

@Decan, I have been in need of a deck with a bit of whimsy ( I need a bit of that these days to stop over thinking) and with your recommendation, Dark Mansion Tarot it is. I find myself going down that rabbit hole, being so serious I forget to have fun with what I am doing - time to turn that around a bit, I have kept up with your posts and like your judgement and taste. Thank you!

[Decan]

2 hours ago, WizardintheWoods said:

@Decan, I have been in need of a deck with a bit of whimsy ( I need a bit of that these days to stop over thinking) and with your recommendation, Dark Mansion Tarot it is. I find myself going down that rabbit hole, being so serious I forget to have fun with what I am doing - time to turn that around a bit, I have kept up with your posts and like your judgement and taste. Thank you!

You're welcome! It's a deck that has a lot of whim, and for a dark deck no card makes me uncomfortable, sometimes with dark decks it can happen.

[WizardintheWoods]

I will keep you in the loop as to how I like it. 

[Wyrdkiss]

On 11/26/2021 at 9:01 AM, gregory said:

Exactly. That fits the Greenwood card. (Crap image; sorry.)

The Wildwood one - no.

 

Ryan has been so very sloppy.

 

Coincidentally, I just did a one card pull with my Wildwood before jumping online.  I enjoy the decks spirit and intent, but I too struggle with mixed feelings about some of the artwork. I checked my book description of the Archer. It is also off kilter.  Can you summarize briefly what the writer did and how it degraded the accuracy of the books? This is the first I've heard of it, and it is a bit disappointing.   I will say this -- I could never quite get to the point where I chose to read with this deck for a querent.   

 

[Rose Lalonde]

21 hours ago, Decan said:

Below are 2 pics of my Dark Mansion Tarot that I received 2 days ago.

 

 

 

...What more? It follows the RWS system with slight variations on a few cards, but which make sense for me. The 3 of Swords could refer (looking at the picture) to a painful memory (you see the card on my pic above)...

 

You may already be aware, but 'hair jewelry' as part of mourning was popular during the Victorian era, and Queen Victoria herself wore a locket of Albert's hair after he died. Great choice for that 3 of Swords! 

[Decan]

24 minutes ago, Rose Lalonde said:

You may already be aware, but 'hair jewelry' as part of mourning was popular during the Victorian era, and Queen Victoria herself wore a locket of Albert's hair after he died. Great choice for that 3 of Swords! 

I thought it should be something like that, indeed, thanks you Rose Lalonde!

[ilweran]

On 12/27/2021 at 4:22 AM, Wyrdkiss said:

Can you summarize briefly what the writer did and how it degraded the accuracy of the books? This is the first I've heard of it, and it is a bit disappointing. 

The Wildwood Book is essentially the book written by Mark Ryan for the Greenwood Tarot with some additions and changes. The Wildwood is a reimagining of the Greenwood, and there is sometimes something of a disconnect between the book and the cards where they have changed the card but not the text.

[ilweran]

Winterseer Animal Oracle by Siolo Thompson

 

 

This is rather lovely, I love Siolo's artwork, had some Amazon credit so treated myself.

 

Box is the current standard Llewellyn box, same as the Linestrider Tarot and Hedgewitch Botanical Oracle. Book is full colour which is lovely. Only a three card spread is included in the book and you're encouraged to use the deck with other decks to give an overall theme or message to the reading.

 

The first card I drew was the swan, a card asking me to look for the beauty in life even when times are difficult.

 

(I'm sure Siolo's website used to include how to correctly pronounce her first name, but I can't find it now and I know I pronounce it incorrectly - as if it were Welsh so the Si becomes Sh and olo as in the name Iolo. Googling found three different suggestions. If anyone here knows and could help out I'd be grateful!)

Edited January 1, 2022 by ilweran