Jump to content

Favorite In-print Rws?


Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Raggydoll said:

Hey!! Good to see you! 😀

I love the look of the Albano-Waite but the new edition I purchased (us games, printed in Italy I believe 🤔) was of such horrible quality! (Very shocking because us games are usually very reliable with their cardstock). Several pictures were blurry and it looked like it had been photocopied

and produced in someone’s basement. Basically! Plus it had a super shiny finish and a strong chemical smell. I so wish I had an older version!

My Italian printing is OK, with no blurriness or chemical stink (unlike my Radiant, which was horrible). The card stock is sturdy and the glossiness is there but it's subdued. It says "facsimile of the 1968 version," which usually means it was photographically reproduced.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Barleywine said:

My Italian printing is OK, with no blurriness or chemical stink (unlike my Radiant, which was horrible). The card stock is sturdy and the glossiness is there but it's subdued. It says "facsimile of the 1968 version," which usually means it was photographically reproduced.

Yeah, I saw on amazon that some people were complaining on the same things as me while other people seem to have received ok decks. So I’m guessing they must have had bad batches. I returned mine immediately after I got it so that’s why I can’t remember the details. I would not dare to place another order, but I might go for a vintage one some day. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raggydoll said:

Hey!! Good to see you! 😀

I love the look of the Albano-Waite but the new edition I purchased (us games, printed in Italy I believe 🤔) was of such horrible quality! (Very shocking because us games are usually very reliable with their cardstock). Several pictures were blurry and it looked like it had been photocopied

and produced in someone’s basement. Basically! Plus it had a super shiny finish and a strong chemical smell. I so wish I had an older version!

How awful! I just don't understand why USG does that! So disappointing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Barleywine said:

My Italian printing is OK, with no blurriness or chemical stink (unlike my Radiant, which was horrible). The card stock is sturdy and the glossiness is there but it's subdued. It says "facsimile of the 1968 version," which usually means it was photographically reproduced.

So weird. I have two Radiants and they are nice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, McFaire said:

How awful! I just don't understand why USG does that! So disappointing.

Well, I think it was a problem with one of their printers. So I don’t blame us games. They are generally very reliable and consistent. The few decks I’ve heard that people complained about are ones printed in Italy so maybe there is (or has been) some problems on one of the facilities there. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, McFaire said:

So weird. I have two Radiants and they are nice.

My Radiant stank so bad of chemicals that I could barely stand it, and it's super-glossy and slippery. I like it fine but it doesn't hold a candle to the Albano-Waite as an "alt-color" deck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, McFaire said:

Thanks reall. I noticed the Pam's Original Art Only on gamecrafter is only available right now with crackle back, and not rose and lily? Are you planning to offer that again soon?

 

 

Thanks for reminder!:) i've actually *unpublished it while ig promo Giveaway is in progress to avoid confusion!:)

but will enable link now so you should be able to order it here?:)

https://www.thegamecrafter.com/games/pam-s-original-art-only-tarot-size

p.s if anyone prefer drivethrucards Original lily n rose back edt just pm me & Ill take your orders!;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, McFaire said:

So weird. I have two Radiants and they are nice.

Same here Radiant my fav!:) & only *chemical decks I've got were some LS Oracle?;)

 

ETa; we have 2 Radiant now!:) Old & Wise!xD lol

Edited by reall
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, reall said:

Thanks for reminder!:) i've actually *unpublished it while ig promo Giveaway is in progress to avoid confusion!:)

but will enable link now so you should be able to order it here?:)

https://www.thegamecrafter.com/games/pam-s-original-art-only-tarot-size

p.s if anyone prefer drivethrucards Original lily n rose back edt just pm me & Ill take your orders!;)

thanks, reall

Link to post
Share on other sites

No - they can't. USG won't let them. I asked them that when it first showed up - that's why they can't sell it from their own site any more, in case US buyers go for them. They can't monitor exactly where the decks are being sent and block them without adversely affecting all the decks they CAN send to the States.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This kind of thing is something I find very off-putting about USG. I prefer to buy things because I want them, not because some company put me in a position where it was difficult or impossible to get what I actually wanted, so I settled for something else.

This is not an artist protecting their work, obviously. It's just controlling behavior.

Many of us have multiple versions of the RWS. Having one doesn't stop anyone from getting another one, if they see something they like.

As I already mentioned, I find the font on the AGM off-putting, but I'm almost tempted to grab a copy on ebay just to stick it to USG. :classic_laugh:
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheel of Fantastic

My favourite in print mass market RWS is a tie between the Tarot Von Waite Premium edition by AGM Urania and the Centennial Smith Waite. The Von Waite (German edition) is easily available on Amazon.de but the English language edition appears to have finally gone OOP.

 

Just an aside, I originally found the crackle back Von Waite on Amazon.de back in 2016 and started a discussion about it on Aeclectic. That thread became huge and sparked interest in the deck. I don't think it's false modesty to say I helped increase the Von Waite's popularity but also brought it to the attention of US Games who squashed the English edition. That really sucked!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wheel of Fantastic said:

My favourite in print mass market RWS is a tie between the Tarot Von Waite Premium edition by AGM Urania and the Centennial Smith Waite. The Von Waite (German edition) is easily available on Amazon.de but the English language edition appears to have finally gone OOP.

 

Just an aside, I originally found the crackle back Von Waite on Amazon.de back in 2016 and started a discussion about it on Aeclectic. That thread became huge and sparked interest in the deck. I don't think it's false modesty to say I helped increase the Von Waite's popularity but also brought it to the attention of US Games who squashed the English edition. That really sucked!

Oh my! Well, the reign of SK will soon come to end, which I think would please AEW and PCS.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, gregory said:

No - they can't. USG won't let them. I asked them that when it first showed up - that's why they can't sell it from their own site any more, in case US buyers go for them. They can't monitor exactly where the decks are being sent and block them without adversely affecting all the decks they CAN send to the States.

Woah! I've just realized there is no agm rws on bookdepository or their official web?X,x Odd I think it was there last time i've checked?x,x & why I was thinking they are only disapproving over english thoth?x,x facepalm lol

Edited by reall
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to provide a visual for those that don’t know what I mean when I talk about the different renderings of the RWS. This is what the Pam a vs Pam b looks like. I feel that it’s obvious that Pamela did not render the Pam b version but that it was retraced by someone who did not share her artistic talent. 

 

The first one is from the original RWS (I believe). It’s a Pam b. Look at the details of Eves face and also at the line work of the snake... 

 

FFEC75C1-85B5-428E-B51F-86FCF41B3F8C.jpeg.d79ac3dfa0a1fbe55788f1f6d6ea12a9.jpeg

 

Then compare it with this 1970s ‘blushing fool’ edition of the same card (I took a pic of my own deck, the first pic is one I found online). Her skin tone is well, more orange for sure but the artwork is just so superior and clean (in my opinion). 

 

100FCADC-D587-415F-B1B5-578CE19E1E7D.thumb.jpeg.c0afe5517887652532d8a414cd7b1468.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Raggydoll

Here's a close up my own Pam A, I believe. This is the great deck I just picked. Its from University Books, New Hyde Park address and leather box. Im told its ca. 1959. The coloring is the same, lifework is excellent, but the way its colored is obviously different. probably older technology, different process. And no, I'm not going to run out and buy a deck from the '70's! I am de-enabled!

20190622_100813.jpg

Edited by Joe
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Joe said:

@Raggydoll

Here's a close up my own Pam A, I believe. This is the great deck I just picked. Its from University Books, New Hyde Park address and leather box. Im told its ca. 1959. The coloring is the same, lifework is excellent, but the way its colored is obviously different. probably older technology, different process. And no, I'm not going to run out and buy a deck from the '70's! I am de-enabled!

20190622_100813.jpg

I have a copy of this version too. It’s more blurry but I really like the bold coloring. (it was because of the blurry line work on this version that I chose to use the blushing fool deck as an example 🙂

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the topic is newer/in-print decks then here is a comparison of the ones I have. The one to the left is a us games copy from the 90s (technically not in print but really easy to come by and very affordable), the middle one is from ag mueller and while mine was bought in the 90s I believe it still looks pretty much the same now. Both look very similar, the middle one has a bit stronger coloring, especially on the skin tones. And to the right is the centennial. That one was a workhorse for me some years ago. It’s very affordable and of good quality. And I like the coloring with the blue-green hues. 

 

5F9C71DF-F54E-48FB-8A7D-AA6541A3101F.thumb.jpeg.5f786c477af1cc8c31e139c7e9fec856.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Raggydoll said:

Since the topic is newer/in-print decks then here is a comparison of the ones I have. The one to the left is a us games copy from the 90s (technically not in print but really easy to come by and very affordable), the middle one is from ag mueller and while mine was bought in the 90s I believe it still looks pretty much the same now. Both look very similar, the middle one has a bit stronger coloring, especially on the skin tones. And to the right is the centennial. That one was a workhorse for me some years ago. It’s very affordable and of good quality. And I like the coloring with the blue-green hues. 

 

Thanks for this. Which is your favorite card stock?

 

The one from the 90s, is that the Original RW with the rose and lilies back?

 

TY

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, McFaire said:

Thanks for this. Which is your favorite card stock?

 

The one from the 90s, is that the Original RW with the rose and lilies back?

 

TY

 

Nope. It’s just the plain plaid back version (yellow tuck box from us games). I used to own the ‘original RWS’ but I never really liked the coloring not the line work (it’s a Pam b). The us games and the ag mueller from the 90s are very similar in quality and they are both good. Nothing special but I like the way they feel over time. They also have Pamela’s handwritten font on them too, which I’m really keen on. When it comes to cardstock I really dislike glossy and thin decks (and none of these fit into that category). I quite like the centennial because it really stands up to frequent use. So I guess it depends on what type of cardstock you like. The 90s versions are slightly waxy but not overly glossy and quite durable. They do have the copyright mark on the side, but for the difference in price between a pre-copyright deck and a more recent one.. well, it’s usually a very big gap there. I was lucky to find my blushing fool deck for 10 dollars, so I was really pleased about that. But my main point is that you can find really good quality decks without having to go broke in the process. Just try to figure out what you like and keep your eyes open. There are lots of comparison videos on YouTube that teach you how to differentiate all the RWS editions. Might be worth while to check that out too. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raggydoll said:

Nope. It’s just the plain plaid back version (yellow tuck box from us games). I used to own the ‘original RWS’ but I never really liked the coloring not the line work (it’s a Pam b). The us games and the ag mueller from the 90s are very similar in quality and they are both good. Nothing special but I like the way they feel over time. They also have Pamela’s handwritten font on them too, which I’m really keen on. When it comes to cardstock I really dislike glossy and thin decks (and none of these fit into that category). I quite like the centennial because it really stands up to frequent use. So I guess it depends on what type of cardstock you like. The 90s versions are slightly waxy but not overly glossy and quite durable. They do have the copyright mark on the side, but for the difference in price between a pre-copyright deck and a more recent one.. well, it’s usually a very big gap there. I was lucky to find my blushing fool deck for 10 dollars, so I was really pleased about that. But my main point is that you can find really good quality decks without having to go broke in the process. Just try to figure out what you like and keep your eyes open. There are lots of comparison videos on YouTube that teach you how to differentiate all the RWS editions. Might be worth while to check that out too. 

Ah, I see. Thank you. I've avoided the plaid backs but maybe I'll have to try to warm toward them. I love my centennial but they are bit stiff and take quite a while to break in, especially if you like to shuffle with eyes closed, as I do. You know how you can just feel when the cards fall into place? The centennial cardstock feels like it resists that, although I love the look of it. Visually it's perfect for me.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, McFaire said:

Ah, I see. Thank you. I've avoided the plaid backs but maybe I'll have to try to warm toward them. I love my centennial but they are bit stiff and take quite a while to break in, especially if you like to shuffle with eyes closed, as I do. You know how you can just feel when the cards fall into place? The centennial cardstock feels like it resists that, although I love the look of it. Visually it's perfect for me.

 

I actually also shuffle with my eyes closed or while I’m ‘looking inward’ so to speak, and I have no issues with it. I prefer the tin version because it fits so well in my hands (I struggle with larger decks due to achy fingers). But I have used mine for many years so it might have soften. Can’t really recall what it was like in the beginning 🤔. And I totally understand your dislike for plaid backs. I really don’t like them very much either. I tolerate them but that’s about it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raggydoll said:

I actually also shuffle with my eyes closed or while I’m ‘looking inward’ so to speak, and I have no issues with it. I prefer the tin version because it fits so well in my hands (I struggle with larger decks due to achy fingers). But I have used mine for many years so it might have soften. Can’t really recall what it was like in the beginning 🤔. And I totally understand your dislike for plaid backs. I really don’t like them very much either. I tolerate them but that’s about it. 

I've been using my tarot size centennial recently, so I'll try the tin for a while. The tin is the one I've been keeping ordered, but I can switch them 🙂

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.