My channel is mostly about the Tarot which has been a constant companion since my childhood. My background is in art, painting and printing, so the artistic aspect of card design and production is a major interest, but my channel is mainly devoted to the world of the Tarot.
I'm not really an avid collector, but more a user and reader of Tarot decks. I prefer to watch other people sharing their decks.
I don't have many books on Tarot now, as most were either borrowed from libraries or jettisoned along the way. I believe in avoiding confusion and repetition if you want to really understand the tarot. Don't get overwhelmed with noise. I have about half a dozen tarot books that I refer to.
I started with a historical deck, delved deeply into the esoteric Tarot and the RWS and I have now come full circle as I've fully embraced the Tarot de Marseille and the Ancient Italian Tarot. It's a breath of fresh air to be back with the clarity, simplicity and flexibility of pip decks.
Thank you for your video, David. I ordered the book, a new edition, Tarot of Marseille: A Guide to Interpretation Anna Maria Morsucci , Antonella Aloi , Mattio Ottolini.
Thank you David for this new video, once again very interesting. Each time you convince me to buy a new tarot and here a new book, despite it being in English ^_^ . I really liked the part on the symbolism of numbers and the aspects covered by the book on this subject
@@tarotquestfr8692 There's plenty of time. I do know that there's a French edition of that deck. The difference being the little white book is in French only. I thought that her explanation of numerology in relation to Tarot was exceptionally clear and succinct. It isn't complicated really, despite the way some authors make it overly so. She writes very well and the translation to English is perfect as far as I can tell. I just wish they'd used original titles when translating to English, e.g. Papess and House of God, etc. Thank you for your kind comments.
Apologies for my hurried delivery. You did well to follow and the auto-generated captions aren't always accurate. Watching again, I should have edited it more thoroughly as I repeat things a lot. Oh well. Like the Tarot, I'm imperfect 😅
Thank you for sharing the book! Had it not been for your video, I wouldn’t have looked twice at it, most likely. Same with the deck! It’s not in my collection … yet, we’ll see 😂
I really like his book and it's one I refer to often. His card interpretations are excellent and his notions of how the Tarot majors came about are the finest I've read. A wonderful ambassador for the Tarot and much missed by all.
Nice unboxing! The Madenié is an obvious favorite of mine; the faces, the colors, and the faint ghosting is fun. I also love the Paul Marteau! I really dig the blue hair and the minimal color palette.
@@SecondThoughtsAboutTheMission thank you for the kind comments. It means a lot to me. Yes, I really love this deck. As you mentioned in one of your videos, it's a cozy deck, like the Spanish Tarot. I think the Marteau is a bit unpopular these days, but it's one of those that when you look at the cards individually it can seem lacking and underwhelming compared to newer restorations, but when you spread the cards on a table for a reading it jumps out at you and triggers something and is just really clear.
This was my first Marseille-style deck, & has become my very favorite. It has a quirky but cheerful character which has brought a lot of fun to my Tarot journey.
Hello David. Thank you for this review. You are right about Conver we see the date of 1760 on the two of deniers, even if we know that Conver was active at the beginning of the 19th century, which clearly proves that he had bought the molds. It seems to me that the backs of the cards have been restored, right? I had completely forgotten the green of the sun and on the clothes from the court cards of cups. In fact, I had the copy of Madenié supplied with the "Tarot Pas à Pas" book by Marianne Costa, I did very little reading with the Madenié. And I gave the book and the copy of Madenié to my niece! ^_^ But I remain convinced that it is the most beautiful Type II! I should buy another one, perhaps that of Yves Reynaud, because looking at your review, I realize that I myself have not done a review of this unique tarot. Question: why are there 2 "LE MAT" in the deck? Best regards. David
Thank you for your comments David and the explanations of some details. By the way, your niece was very lucky to be gifted this beautiful deck. If you freeze some frames on the video it might clarify your query about "Le Mat." I apologise for skipping over that in my initial excitement when opening the box. I was a bit surprised too as the differences aren't immediately obvious. As far as I can see, it is in the red colour bleed on his staff and a masking on his tunic which covers some of the bells on his collar. I did some research and I believe that is how his first edition printed, but this 3rd edition has rectified that. I am surprised that he's added that 'original' card in this one. However, it is the kind tof restoration work I personally approve of in a facsimile deck, but I know many think that is a correction too far! If you look again at the two of deniers scroll, the date is 1709. Also have a look at the writing on the base of the Ace of Coupes: "PATER GRAVEUR A DIJON." I think it's worth having a copy of this deck - even if it doesn't become one's main deck as it's historically so important and very beautiful to just look at. One correction, I probably needed to add is that I read that the Chosson deck might be an older Type 2 deck. Do you have more information on that? It's my feeling today that the Type 2 deck may be as old as the Type 1, rather than developed from it. The Vieville being another older variant that didn't quite sell as well? I know that lots of Tarot Historians have pet theories and are keen to advocate for a particular type, but they seldom have compelling evidence as far as I can see. They may of course be right, but until somebody uncovers a Type 0 deck (One researcher I came across believes that the Noblet is the Type 0 deck?) it has to be speculative for me. Now that I have had a bit more time with the Noblet deck, I intend to do a video review of that one, but not until the autumn now. Regards David
@@Aceofwands688 Hello David, Thank you for your reply. Indeed, I understand better the presence of the 2 FOU in the game. it's a very commendable initiative on the part of the creator. I'm still in favor of even minor restorations rather than facsimiles, because when you don't have the original map in front of you, it can be difficult to see certain details that can come out better with a modification of the lines and colors. I'm always in favor of corrections as long as they improve map legibility. I confess I don't know Chosson. I'm not sure that type 2 is from the same period as type 1. It seems to me that the differences between type 1 and type 2 are evolutions from 1 to 2. But this is pure speculation. It's very true that several types of tarot developed in France in the 18th century. We have the anonymous Paris tarot of 1615, Vieiville in 1650, Noblet in 1650. These are 3 totally different tarots. It is therefore possible that type 1 and type 2 developed in parallel. According to my information, no hypothesis has yet been verified by evidence. I don't believe that Noblet is type 0. Nor is Noblet the oldest tarot, it's now Vachier of 1639, a type 1 sold at auction for 65,000EUR (!!!) in March 23. On the other hand, Noblet had a very different point of view from the other craftsmen, putting, for example, a woman and a man in the sun. Noblet was a true scholar if he hadn't made the 1st tarot. Best regards, David.
Thanks for the review. I had confused it with another Fournier I have. This one I didn't know. Indeed it's a shame for the errors in the text and especially for the information from the printer on the 5 of swords. I've never seen a Celtic cross as complicated as that in the layout, even if 11 cards seems the normal number. I'm not sure the printer used the original names, they're the RWS tarot names, aren't they? Too bad for a Spanish tarot from 1736 when the RWS tarot did not yet exist. I really like the colours, except for the orange of the cups. The line of the drawings is rather nice, and I have the impression that this is a deck that could be suitable for children. Although the 22 triumphs lack a certain amount of detail, but I think it's a good challenger to the tarot de marseille. I'll have to buy this one too, thanks for the discovery!
Yes the instruction booklet is possibly the worst I've ever seen - for lots of reasons. I am also bemused that they chose to translate some of the names into RWS ones sometimes. I think it would be a great first deck for a younger owner too. I would just like to see the skin tones done like the older print and removing the English names which are not necessary at all in my opinion. I like the use of type 1 and type 2 as well.
Watching through I need to apologise for referring to the manufacturer incorrectly as La Scarabeo when it should be Lo Scarabeo. Also, the playing card pack I used is a little atypical and much wider than average, so the mini deck isn't so different in size, but perhaps a tad too small ideally.
