Mary-El new cards in 2nd edition

[McFaire]

11 hours ago, Decan said:

I never bought the Mary-El but it looks a great deck with regard to art. The paintings look like Fabulous.

Nevertheless if I could appreciate each of the paintings in an exhibition, in a deck some cards would disturb me a bit; for example this old Hierophant card that the artist changed... The new Hierophant is more for my taste but it could be the High Priestess.

I don't know, but great art!

Some of the images are disturbing to me as well, but that is one of the things that gives the deck it's power. The real world is sometimes disturbing. I think being open to feeling that discomfort and looking at those feelings with an honest, open mind, helps to open up intuition and self-honesty.

 

There are days for light-hearted decks with butterflies and rainbows and polka-dot mushrooms, and then there are days for a candid decks that might make you squirm a bit.

 

[FLizarraga]

3 hours ago, McFaire said:

However if they do a second print run I will probably get one out of curiosity.

Same here. I actually have several copies of the first edition, trimmed in different ways, so that'll be nothing new for me...

[FLizarraga]

3 hours ago, McFaire said:

Some of the images are disturbing to me as well, but that is one of the things that gives the deck it's power. The real world is sometimes disturbing. I think being open to feeling that discomfort and looking at those feelings with an honest, open mind, helps to open up intuition and self-honesty.

 

There are days for light-hearted decks with butterflies and rainbows and polka-dot mushrooms, and then there are days for a candid decks that might make you squirm a bit.

 

THIS.

[Astraea]

I trimmed a copy of the 1st edition, including the titles, and use it as an oracle deck so that my mind won't constantly try to flip into the Waite-Smith mode - works great for me.

[McFaire]

1 hour ago, Astraea said:

I trimmed a copy of the 1st edition, including the titles, and use it as an oracle deck so that my mind won't constantly try to flip into the Waite-Smith mode - works great for me.

I'll bet it's beautiful!

[Astraea]

1 hour ago, McFaire said:

I'll bet it's beautiful!

It really is. The images are so rich that they don't need to be anchored to suits and numbers, or even elements...unless you want them to (for those times, it's nice to have a full untrimmed Mary-El on hand).

[MoonGypsy]

Hello everyone,

i honestly haven't noticed the card back problem, but i have only shuffled my deck twice. [i don't riffle shuffle, just hand over hand] and the black edges have already started to peel off... i was really, really careful, too...

 

[FLizarraga]

12 hours ago, MoonGypsy said:

Hello everyone,

i honestly haven't noticed the card back problem, but i have only shuffled my deck twice. [i don't riffle shuffle, just hand over hand] and the black edges have already started to peel off... i was really, really careful, too...

 

I have not even shuffled this deck yet, just gone over it a few times, and my black edges are peeling, too...

 

The first edition's card stock is over-laminated and thick as a coaster, but at least it's sturdy. This is ridiculous.

Edited June 5, 2019 by FLizarraga

[MoonGypsy]

3 hours ago, FLizarraga said:

I have not even shuffled this deck yet, just gone over it a few times, and my black edges are peeling, too...

 

The first edition's card stock is over-laminated and thick as a coaster, bu at least it's sturdy. This is ridiculous.

Oh gosh, Flizzy! This is sad. i especially feel sad for Mary. She has got to be feeling very disappointed and somewhat frustrated.

Her art deserves the best of everything. Schiffer's printing and cardstock has been challenging with so many decks. Personally,  i would have rather edged it myself...

i can touch it up, but it won't match...

[McFaire]

9 minutes ago, MoonGypsy said:

Oh gosh, Flizzy! This is sad. i especially feel sad for Mary. She has got to be feeling very disappointed and somewhat frustrated.

Her art deserves the best of everything.

Yes it must be painful and frustrating. I really feel for Marie too. 

 

I think the Mary-El is very special and is one of those decks that is in a class by itself. So I hope it will be around for a long time to come, and that we can look forward to better editions in the future. I hope!

 

Meanwhile, Marie must be truly bummed, seeing those bad reviews that have nothing to do with the work.

 

[KaiNO]

The cards were everywhere in the box when they arrived because the paper band that enclosed the deck had got torn (as others here also have described).

At least one card had received hard treatment on the way to my mailbox. Sigh 😥 Poor quality of the box too.

 

 

However, the deck is beautiful! And a positive thing for me was that when I questioned the deck about how it would work for me in the short, medium, and long term, I got these answers. That wasn't too bad:

 

[McFaire]

7 minutes ago, KaiNO said:

The cards were everywhere in the box when they arrived because the paper band that enclosed the deck had got torn (as others here also have described).

At least one card had received hard treatment on the way to my mailbox. Sigh 😥 Poor quality of the box too.

 

 

However, the deck is beautiful! And a positive thing for me was that when I questioned the deck about how it would work for me in the short, medium, and long term, I got these answers. That wasn't too bad:

 

Man those cards are gorgeous. (Yeah I'm a broken record!)

 

So sorry about the fool. That is just not okay.

 

Those card wells are a complete fail. They do not hold the deck securely, which causes the weight of the deck to break the paper band.

[DevonCarter]

On June 2, 2019 at 1:49 PM, McFaire said:

Solid color card backs never seem to match exactly. I suppose that may be why patterned backs are common in playing cards. It helps to hide production imperfections. It seems to happen less with glossy than matte.

Quoted for truth! Large solids are always difficult to print, whether on an offset press or on a digital printer. The cards are printed on a large press sheet and cut down, so if one side of the press is running heavy, or there's a front on the same sheet in the same area that had to be adjusted for color, or many other reasons, even backs all on the same sheet might not quite match. Also throughout the run, the colors can vary a little as the press heats up, or gets low on ink, or whatever. Generally there are a large number of sheets lost at first, called makeready. The press operator has to get the press up to color, and will pull a sheet every so often to check until it's close. Then fine adjustments can be made if needed across the sheet, if the densities aren't all the same. Most press operators pull a sheet every so often to check during the run, too, but the machines are so fast there can be thirty or more come out before any adjustments take effect. Makeready is usually recycled, but it could have been accidentally mixed into the actual run or something.

 

These issues can be a little less noticeable on a coated stock, as the ink sits more on top of the paper. On uncoated it soaks into the paper, which can make the colors less vibrant but also make variations a little more visible.

 

It stinks that this deck has had printing errors, but hopefully they'll get the quality together for the next run. There are so many variables that can cause color and density variations, and they'll always show more on large solids. 

 

This deck might end up on my wishlist - I keep looking at the pictures of it.

[McFaire]

20 minutes ago, DevonCarter said:

Quoted for truth! Large solids are always difficult to print, whether on an offset press or on a digital printer. The cards are printed on a large press sheet and cut down, so if one side of the press is running heavy, or there's a front on the same sheet in the same area that had to be adjusted for color, or many other reasons, even backs all on the same sheet might not quite match. Also throughout the run, the colors can vary a little as the press heats up, or gets low on ink, or whatever. Generally there are a large number of sheets lost at first, called makeready. The press operator has to get the press up to color, and will pull a sheet every so often to check until it's close. Then fine adjustments can be made if needed across the sheet, if the densities aren't all the same. Most press operators pull a sheet every so often to check during the run, too, but the machines are so fast there can be thirty or more come out before any adjustments take effect. Makeready is usually recycled, but it could have been accidentally mixed into the actual run or something.

 

These issues can be a little less noticeable on a coated stock, as the ink sits more on top of the paper. On uncoated it soaks into the paper, which can make the colors less vibrant but also make variations a little more visible.

 

It stinks that this deck has had printing errors, but hopefully they'll get the quality together for the next run. There are so many variables that can cause color and density variations, and they'll always show more on large solids. 

 

This deck might end up on my wishlist - I keep looking at the pictures of it.

Interesting. Do you think rich black is harder to match than other colors?

[DevonCarter]

19 hours ago, McFaire said:

Interesting. Do you think rich black is harder to match than other colors?

I think it can show variations easier than some other solids like oranges and greens, and any color with only one or two inks involved. It's not nearly as difficult to match as dark blues, some beige or taupe colors, or the worst offender - a CMYK gray. But because it has all the colors in it, it can be susceptible to some variation. Big solids of any kind have to be watched carefully, and if all the colors are involved any small issue (fleck of dust, scratch on the plate, roller mark) happening on just one color can show up in the final print. 

Until 5 years or so ago, CMYK grays were just not possible on the digital machines at our shop. The presses could do them, but it was tricky. On digital there would always be banding, some areas would be pinker, some yellower, etc. The machines have gotten much better, but still they have to be carefully watched.

I truly wouldn't expect the backs of a 78-card deck to all match 100% perfectly, no matter how it is printed. I'd expect it to be close enough that you'd have to be really looking for the differences side by side, though.

[katrinka]

The smaller size/no borders is appealing, but the newer versions of the cards look toned down, more RWS-like. For me, the appeal of the Mary-El is precisely that it IS "Landscapes of the Abyss".

[McFaire]

On 6/7/2019 at 8:07 AM, katrinka said:

The smaller size/no borders is appealing, but the newer versions of the cards look toned down, more RWS-like. For me, the appeal of the Mary-El is precisely that it IS "Landscapes of the Abyss".

@katrinka, do you mean that the new version is not as powerful visually with the matte finish?

[katrinka]

20 hours ago, McFaire said:

@katrinka, do you mean that the new version is not as powerful visually with the matte finish?

No. I always prefer matte.
I mean the images that were changed. You can compare them at the link you posted in the OP.
They've been prettied up, made less jarring. The old Hierophant, for instance, always gave me slight feeling of revulsion - that made it a powerful image. The new one just looks like a kindly grandparent. And the new High Priestess is stunningly beautiful, but why? When I look at her, I'm not thinking much about the meaning. I'm thinking I want a larger version to put on the wall.

We live in an age of pretty decks - pretty sells - and it gets taken too far, to the point where every card is something to be oooh'ed and ahhh'ed over. But when you look at a timeless, respected deck like the Thoth, not every card is attractive, and there's a reason for that. See this discussion on the Prince of Swords: http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=234201&page=11

It's still a good deck, and who knows, I may get it at some point because of the matte finish and smaller size. But it's not the standout that it was.

Edited June 12, 2019 by katrinka

[McFaire]

5 hours ago, katrinka said:

No. I always prefer matte.
I mean the images that were changed. You can compare them at the link you posted in the OP.
They've been prettied up, made less jarring. The old Hierophant, for instance, always gave me slight feeling of revulsion - that made it a powerful image. The new one just looks like a kindly grandparent. And the new High Priestess is stunningly beautiful, but why? When I look at her, I'm not thinking much about the meaning. I'm thinking I want a larger version to put on the wall.

We live in an age of pretty decks - pretty sells - and it gets taken too far, to the point where every card is something to be oooh'ed and ahhh'ed over. But when you look at a timeless, respected deck like the Thoth, not every card is attractive, and there's a reason for that. See this discussion on the Prince of Swords: http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=234201&page=11

It's still a good deck, and who knows, I may get it at some point because of the matte finish and smaller size. But it's not the standout that it was.

Oh, I see. Yes, there are three new cards.

[katrinka]

Kelly did a comparison video yesterday. Very thorough!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9ZttBe0qDU

[McFaire]

On 6/12/2019 at 3:45 PM, katrinka said:

They've been prettied up, made less jarring. The old Hierophant, for instance, always gave me slight feeling of revulsion - that made it a powerful image. The new one just looks like a kindly grandparent. And the new High Priestess is stunningly beautiful, but why? When I look at her, I'm not thinking much about the meaning. I'm thinking I want a larger version to put on the wall.

We live in an age of pretty decks - pretty sells - and it gets taken too far, to the point where every card is something to be oooh'ed and ahhh'ed over. But when you look at a timeless, respected deck like the Thoth, not every card is attractive, and there's a reason for that.

It's still a good deck, and who knows, I may get it at some point because of the matte finish and smaller size. But it's not the standout that it was.

I forgot about the high priestess. So there are four new cards. However, I don't think they were changed to pretty them up. The new 3 of sword is definitely not prettier or less jarring. Same for the changes to Judgment.

 

Marie White talks about her choices here: https://tarotsmyth.wordpress.com/. I think it is only fair to hear her thoughts before dismissing her choices. She is a true visionary artist and her depth as a interpreter of tarot is deeply layered. Her choices always come from much study, contemplation, and understanding.

 

The word Abyss has a specific esoteric meaning and I could only hope to one day become as familiar with it as is Marie White.

 

 

 

[katrinka]

6 hours ago, McFaire said:

I forgot about the high priestess. So there are four new cards. However, I don't think they were changed to pretty them up. The new 3 of sword is definitely not prettier or less jarring. Same for the changes to Judgment. 

Actually, they are. The heart is anatomical, but washed and half covered with roses. It doesn't elicit the "WTH?" reaction of the dove and daggers - we've all seen hearts pierced with swords/daggers innumerable times on cards, tattoos, t shirts, ad infinitum.  The phoenix no longer looks explosive. It's reminiscent of the phoenixes in Chinese art, peacefully coasting through smoke/mist rather than uttering a cry on the level of Gabriel's wake-the-dead trumpet blast.

6 hours ago, McFaire said:

Marie White talks about her choices here: https://tarotsmyth.wordpress.com/. I think it is only fair to hear her thoughts before dismissing her choices.

I already did.
She says of Judgement: "The changes in this card were mostly aesthetic. "
And the babies on the Hierophant ("They were the passing down of corruption and dogma through the church. They were Ignorance and Want" in the old version) "The two babies are now two balanced and beautiful gold snakes."
She talks about wanting to make the pillars more prominent on the High Priestess, but not her decision to jettison the naked, faceless pregnant woman for something much more RWS-like.

6 hours ago, McFaire said:

She is a true visionary artist and her depth as a interpreter of tarot is deeply layered. Her choices always come from much study, contemplation, and understanding.

 

The word Abyss has a specific esoteric meaning and I could only hope to one day become as familiar with it as is Marie White.

She uses the word in re: the High Priestess: "... the water at the bottom is the collective unconscious, subconscious, or the abyss, into which her feet are firmly planted." It's more of a modern Jungian usage of the word than esoteric/occult.

I can agree that she's an inspired artist. But artists have to eat and pay bills, too. And what I'm seeing here is an artist compromising on some images in order to appeal to a broader audience,  trying to be a little less offensive to the squeamish, and dish up some thoroughly familiar RWS-inspired symbolism that everyone is comfortable with. I can respect her for not completely selling out and doing the whole deck over, she's left a lot of the edgy stuff that made it a great deck, and a standout from all the pablum that's flooding the market. It's just that I can see what happened here, and I blame the public moreso than the artist.

 

[Astraea]

I can't fathom why the four changed cards were not made available as extras, rather than replacing the originals. I will probably continue to use the 1st edition for readings because, to me, the new 3 of Swords, High Priestess, Judgement and Hierophant lack punch and depth. I hope that there will be a 3rd edition at some point, with those original cards restored as options. 

[gregory]

Not entirely sure it was "an artist trying to make more money"; I think Marie is more honest than that. But I was struck by some of the comments on that youtube:

 

Quote

I'm happy to have the first edition, especially bc none of the changes in those new cards are really better than the originals ... I absolutely adore my orginal high priestess and I enjoy the creepy feeling of the hierophant very much

but

Quote

All the things that put me off this deck have been amended and it has finally gone on my wishlist

Quote

why didn’t they put the changed cards in as extras and people could make their own choices??????

That last says it all. The one I BITTERLY regret is the HP. But I read what Marie had to say, and also note what Kelly said in her video. Cater to all and give us the choice, seems the best option.

Edited June 14, 2019 by gregory

[Raggydoll]

3 hours ago, Astraea said:

I can't fathom why the four changed cards were not made available as extras, rather than replacing the originals. I will probably continue to use the 1st edition for readings because, to me, the new 3 of Swords, High Priestess, Judgement and Hierophant lack punch and depth. I hope that there will be a 3rd edition at some point, with those original cards restored as options. 

I might be wrong here but I believe the standard printing option for tarot decks are 80 cards, to make full plates (the two extra cards that you end up with when you make a 78 card deck are often utilized as title cards or advertisement). At least that was the deal with the Thoth deck from the 80s where they decided to include 2 extra pieces of (rejected) artwork to make it a total of 80 cards. And my guess is that it would cost extra to add another plate of cards. And since it’s a mass market deck, they will want to keep costs down.