By Natalie Hertz, printed in Belgium. Copyright 1999 US Games Systems Inc.
The cards measure 4 11/16" tall by 2 3/4 " wide. The card stock is thin, flexible and feels slightly plastic coated. The edges are slightly rounded.
The backs are predominantly blue, with a stylized dragon ornamented with swirls. There is a 1/8" gold band around the outside edge. The deck is reversible.
The card fronts have a gold band around the image, roughly 1/4" around the top and sides, 11/16" around the bottom. The gold edges are decorated with black Art Deco pinstripes and squares. There is a box at the bottom of each card face with the name of the card in an ornate typeface. Each card has the copyright information on the lower right hand edge.
The artwork has a Gothic cartoon spin that is both attractive and faintly eerie.
The art appears to be a combination of pen and ink and collage for many of the images, including marbleized paper, printed paper and fabric. However, this does not detract from the deck - the effect is very subtle, and enhances the figures.
The cards follow the RWS symbolism for the most part. This is not a light and happy deck. The expressions of the faces of the figures are sullen at best. The most light cards, like the Fool, the Star and the Sun are eerie.
However, this is a compelling deck. Some of my favorite cards are strength, the World, all of the Aces, the two and three of Wands.
Natalie Hertz also created the Vampire tarot, and is a professional artist.
Although a beginner might be able to read with this deck, unless one was familiar with tarot one might find this slightly more difficult as a learning deck - partly because of the lack of symbolism in the background, which assists beginners in my opinion.
After a week of use, I found myself drawn more to the cards with the non-human images greatly, and somewhat repelled by the humanoid images.
This deck is very slippery and hard to shuffle. While I thought I would end up disliking this deck by the end of the week, I found myself drawn to it.
I probably would replace this deck if it strayed.
This deck is in print.
This deck is not a great beginner deck, but it could be done.
Not a must have deck, but a nice addition to any collection - although not for every taste.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Tarot Deck Review # 14 - Mythic Tarot
Bu Julia Sharman-Burke and Liz Greene, cards illustrated by Tricia Newell. copyright Fireside books published by Simon & Shuster 1986. This is a set, and came with a black (nylon) spread cloth printed with the Celtic cross spread and a hardbound book.
The cars measure 5 1/16" by 3". The card stock is very thin - thin enough I would hesitate to use this deck for regular readings. It does not appear to have a finish, aside from the ink. The edges are slightly rounded.
The backs are black with a thin gold pinstripe 3/16ths from the edge, and a gold printed design that incorporates all the suite symbols in a loose Celtic knot. The cards are not reversible. The card fronts have a parchment colored border, and bold modern printing at the top clearing stating the card name.
The artwork is somewhat classical, and slightly reminiscent of Edward Gorey in style. the cars appear to be ink and possibly acrylic or gouache.
The majors depict various myths, such as Hercules, and Gods, such as Apollo. the minors tell the story of one myth. Cups are Eros and Psyche, Wands are Jason and the Argonauts, Swords are Orestes and the curse of the House of Atreus, and Pentacles the story of Daedalus.
This deck is subtitled "A New Approach to Tarot" although the symbolism appears to be based in the RWS style.
Others have felt this deck is inconsistent as far as card meanings and the depictions of the myths .
I like the Moon, Temperance, and the 5 of Wands so far. The artwork doesn't speak to me as much as other decks I have. It lacks the charm of Gorey.
After a week of use, I am absolutely certain this deck would not be good for a beginner. With the exception of a beginner who was familiar with all the myths depicted on these cards.
I ended up cutting my time with the Mystical short. The flimsiness of the card stock and the size of the cards made them difficult to shuffle. I also found I wasn't comfortable reading with this deck at all. The deck was too obscure at times, and even as an intuitive reader, I found myself looking at the book for hints.
I also found the artwork more irritating the longer I used it.
I probably would not replace this deck if it strayed.
This deck is in print.
It is a deck that would appeal to some - but not to me.
The cars measure 5 1/16" by 3". The card stock is very thin - thin enough I would hesitate to use this deck for regular readings. It does not appear to have a finish, aside from the ink. The edges are slightly rounded.
The backs are black with a thin gold pinstripe 3/16ths from the edge, and a gold printed design that incorporates all the suite symbols in a loose Celtic knot. The cards are not reversible. The card fronts have a parchment colored border, and bold modern printing at the top clearing stating the card name.
The artwork is somewhat classical, and slightly reminiscent of Edward Gorey in style. the cars appear to be ink and possibly acrylic or gouache.
The majors depict various myths, such as Hercules, and Gods, such as Apollo. the minors tell the story of one myth. Cups are Eros and Psyche, Wands are Jason and the Argonauts, Swords are Orestes and the curse of the House of Atreus, and Pentacles the story of Daedalus.
This deck is subtitled "A New Approach to Tarot" although the symbolism appears to be based in the RWS style.
Others have felt this deck is inconsistent as far as card meanings and the depictions of the myths .
I like the Moon, Temperance, and the 5 of Wands so far. The artwork doesn't speak to me as much as other decks I have. It lacks the charm of Gorey.
After a week of use, I am absolutely certain this deck would not be good for a beginner. With the exception of a beginner who was familiar with all the myths depicted on these cards.
I ended up cutting my time with the Mystical short. The flimsiness of the card stock and the size of the cards made them difficult to shuffle. I also found I wasn't comfortable reading with this deck at all. The deck was too obscure at times, and even as an intuitive reader, I found myself looking at the book for hints.
I also found the artwork more irritating the longer I used it.
I probably would not replace this deck if it strayed.
This deck is in print.
It is a deck that would appeal to some - but not to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)