The reason why other decks are relevant is that you give reasons for thinking that the PMB is made to be tacked on a wall. You say that the cards are too thick to be shuffled and played a trick-taking game with, and does not show enough wear in the right places. Well, if other decks done around the same time or earlier were used to play trick-taking games with despite being the same thickness and with the same wear and tack holes as well, that goes against your argument. You can't just say, "I'm not talking about those." If you give a reason for why some inference is true, as an instance of a general principle, the general principle has to be defensible in other cases as well, or else you have to give defensible reason why not, also defensible either by evidence or inference from something else. Otherwise it's not genuine reasoning, but an article of faith, like the virgin birth (for which counterexamples are irrelevant). Science and reasoning depend on general principles (e.g. the CY is based on alchemy, and Filippo Filippo engaged in alchemy--defensible in other cards and cases). If it's an article of faith, just say so, and we'll leave you alone. I for one am interested in what Mr. or Ms. Variantventures has to say, especially about the CY, BB, and d'Este. If his refutations in relation to other decks would apply just as well to those three and the PMB, then I'm interested in what he has to say even about decks I've never heard of.

On the other hand, I wouldn't defend the proposition "no luxury decks were ever used in actual trick-taking game-playing". Such a view is needlessly extreme, relative to questioning Adrian's view, which we absolutely must keep in mind as relating to the purpose of the PMB only. It is a matter of "in general" for a particular deck and maybe luxury decks as a whole (depending on wear, etc.), and the reasonableness of the concomitant co-existence of less expensive, more ephemeral decks with large cards (but significantly fewer layers) for the same consumers, if the amount of wear relative to the number of games played would require that.

To Huck:

So a "topic" with specific subjects like: "The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D" is not really a thing here at Tarothistorydotcom to keep a civilized "discussion" alive?

Well - good to know!

Adrian

To mikeh:

Otherwise it's not genuine reasoning, but an article of faith, like the virgin birth (for which counterexamples are irrelevant). Science and reasoning depend on general principles (e.g. the CY is based on alchemy, and Filippo Filippo engaged in alchemy--defensible in other cards and cases). If it's an article of faith, just say so, and we'll leave you alone.

To ME it seems like YOU and your friends took that LEAP OF FAITH some decades ago when YOU ALL signed up for the "playing cards scam" that Mr. Kaplan set in motion and NOBODY did complain! WHY?
This is - of course - only a rhetorical question mikeh
And THIS is the thing YOU ALL should be FURIOUS about and perhaps tear down Mr. K's & V's doors down - no?

Perhaps you and your friends do not KNOW either that the material the Visconti-Sforza "cards" were made of is a mystery (I trusted in "your" own "research capabilities" > and saved the BEST for LAST - so to no good end it seems

The MORGAN Library:
http://corsair.themorgan.org/cgi-bin/Pw ... BID=332018

Description: 1 miniature, full-page : painting, on vellum.

You surely know what VELLUM IS? Or perhaps not?
OR didn't YOU LOOK? WHY?

You see that the subject is so MUCH more complicated as you thought it to be.
Perhaps you should take a rest and gather your friends to pressure Mr.V at the M to provide some verifiable data? No?
Before going BIG ...

Belief is BLISS

Have a GOOD one - perhaps NOW YOU KNOW better?

Adrian

Adrian Goldwetter wrote:To Huck

So a "topic" with specific subjects like: "The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D" is not really a thing here at Tarothistorydotcom to keep a civilized "discussion" alive?

A topic not naturally defines all, what in a thread is stated in the course of a thread ... by the starter of the thread and also others, who contribute to the thread.

The title line is very short, how could it be done?

Well, I wrote:

A forum is a community place. If one wants, that nobody adds something to an article, one can make a personal webpage instead. If one wants to have a place, where one can control the comments, one can make a webpage with comment function. There you can delete any comment, which you don't like. Here not.

Forum publications have advantages and disadvantages ... from the personal perspective of the author. If somebody makes statements, as you did with analyses with strict commentaries, that the PMB MUST have been only a show object, you shouldn't wonder that you meet arguments with observations which lead to an opposite interpretation.

And these observations naturally may include info about other decks. Naturally a thread starter may beg, that other authors should keep strictly limited to the theme. But the dynamic of the discussions usually makes this not very successful.

I don't know, what you call a "civilized discussion". I don't think, that I was very uncivilized, when I wrote this text. I just stated facts about a Forum participation and what it is good for and what it is not good for.

You cannot control the other users, and the other users can't control you. And the case, that you are a thread starter, doesn't change that.
Only for really very difficult cases there's a netiquette and a moderator. And it was always the best, that we didn't need them and we've a long tradition of about 18.000 posts and long years.

From the etiquette ...

The forum encourages freedom and independence of view, together with tolerance and care of others.

This does not mean that your views may not be subjected to difficult questions if unsubstantiated claims are made.

You are totally correct Huck ...
... IF we were talking in this topic about the thickness (and so: "playability" ) of the Visconti(-Sforza) Tarot sets in between several disputants - but surely we (you & me) were alone for quite a bit of pages and many posts.
So "controlling" should have been very easy IF YOU were up to a civilized discussion ON topic for the benefit of the readers.

mikeh appeared only on very seldom occasions AND he did bring really something to the table and your invitee variantventures did appear once so far.

WHAT did YOU bring so far (apart from distractions and deflection)?
Where is the thickness data on the BIG decks you mentioned only with names and 2D measurements?
What would be the use for searching guests in the future to bury these significant data in a topic that bears a misleading headline for THEM?
Why not keep a VERY complicated and GAME CHANGING subject like this as simple as possible?

You could open a follow up topic about those big decks WITH some research and e-mails and DATA that would have all the merits in his own right and you surely should keep your trionfi.com friends posted on this groundbreaking matter - don't you think?

This would be the best way to keep tabs on such a new subject that was a non-subject until NOW.
But you do not seem to agree (at least from what I understood from your posts)?!

The material of the VS set is not the only mystery that the Morgan Library should be questioned on (and it's VERY sloppy state of affairs) - and so bringing new subjects like other decks to the table in this topic would make this mess even more messier and no good and usable data (for later readers) could be obtained in this fashion.

Adrian

Adrian Goldwetter wrote: What would be the use for searching guests in the future to bury these significant data in a topic that bears a misleading headline for THEM?
Why not keep a VERY complicated and GAME CHANGING subject like this as simple as possible?

Okay. If that's the technical problem ... YOU control the title, cause you've made the first post.

So you can edit the first post, and rename it too "Size values of old card decks" or whatever you think a good title. That's one possibility and it is a very simple step. All posts in the thread, which didn't alter the title, will then take the new title as their topic.

You can also edit the first post in the manner as I did recently with the theme Germini/Minchiate ...
see viewtopic.php?f=11&t=420
I moved the original first post to the second post, which was also also altered.
That's a second possibility.

Once I researched French Tarot dates, and this research became confusing. Then I simply collected all important matters to another thread ... with references to places, where one could find more material to single points.
Please help ... French Tarot dates 1500 - 1659
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=754
Collection French Tarot dates 1500-1700
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=807
I tried to make "Collection" a known title for such threads. Everybody can open such a thread. Best it's arranged in a matter, that the 1st post can be altered and improved later.
A 3rd possibility.

You present here a quite exiting proposal Huck!

Have you discussed with robert what such a new term as a general procedure what do to this site and any other on the web by the way?
What would it do to your wish for a "better sorting" ( viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1116 )
I'm just joking obviously! As you must have been I'm quite sure now - when I REALLY think about it ...

... I come to a topic and comment there ON the advertised subject the author has provided with a reasonable headline to attract members to comment on and read about ...

... BUT I want to discuss ANOTHER matter the author is opposed to because it would be NOT on TOPIC (headline) ...
... and HE should CHANGE HIS researched - advertised AND accepted topic (headline) due to MY HUNCH ...
... and ALL the members who commented and contributed did that in VAIN?

This is a GREAT Idea I think for YOUR topics - but not in MY world!
Thanks so much for that input and NOT doing the obvious thing ...
... like opening a new topic.

YOU do that nearly every day - so one more won't hurt ...
... and when you do that - I may come around with a new idea for YOUR topic and bring this quote as a gift ...
... just joking ... because I wouldn't DO that!

Only he >>> would

Adrian

To mikeh once more.

mikeh - I really have a hard time to comprehend how you can manage to persistently ignore the Kilim-pattern in the background of the personas of ALL 3 Visconti-sets which set them clearly apart from other big sets ...

I explained already that to my knowledge only the handmade Visconti-Sforza "cards" bear that kilim structure that is mirrored in the Tarotée - THAT was the whole point of the Tarotée-Thread were we both met the first time and you did inform me after my astounded reply that you didn't care to read before posting and asking a specific non-substantiated question about them Tarotée.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1084&start=90#p18387

i mention this again and again and again and ...
... to no avail.

I explained HOW these structures work and for what it is used (not only once!) and you really come up with ...

Well, if other decks done around the same time or earlier were used to play trick-taking games with despite being the same thickness and with the same wear and tack holes as well, that goes against your argument. You can't just say, "I'm not talking about those." If you give a reason for why some inference is true, as an instance of a general principle, the general principle has to be defensible in other cases as well, or else you have to give defensible reason why not, also defensible either by evidence or inference from something else.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1084&start=100#p18390

This special pattern sets the 3 Visconti sets clearly apart from all other decks (besides the Goldschmidt Tarot that is unfortunately to diminished to work on it alone - but the dimensions of the patterns (already demonstrated) are fairly equal!)

I already mentioned that THIS pattern is used to structure the BOOK(s) that are the content of TAROT.
Seemingly you do not know much about ancient memory techniques so I will give you a link ...

The Method of loci (> viae > paths > turuq > TAROT)

The items to be remembered in this mnemonic system are mentally associated with specific physical locations.[4] The method relies on memorized spatial relationships to establish, order, and recollect memorial content. It is also known as the "Journey Method," used for storing lists of related items, or the "Roman Room" technique, which is most effective for storing unrelated information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_loci

This is a wide field - so you may have much on your plate.
Normally a person who works with this system to memorize some special content makes up his own "road map".
With Tarot it's different obviously because this special content should be transmitted - even without personal contact.

So the 1st step is to RECOGNIZE the pattern because now a "geographic coordinate system" is PROVIDED.
The 1st baby-steps I illustrated meticulously in a topic based on "C"'s work here already to give a more lively impression ...

Tarot de Marseille Type II: The Ouroboros Project
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1119

But to get the most efficient look you (and everyone else) should really start at the beginning - or ask maybe ...
... substantiated questions of course - after reading ...

Adrian

I was just trying to clarify how the thickness of the cards contributed to your argument. Apparently it plays no role, i.e. is irrelevant. Well, that's something.

Now in your last post I see another argument in favor of your "kilim": how putting the cards on the wall allows them to play a role in a memory system. Once again, I do not understand. What is it that is to be remembered? Surely not the cards, which are easy enough to remember without putting them on a wall. The cards and their order perhaps can be used as "hooks" on which to remember other sequences, such as the parts of a speech. If so, I don't see how putting them on a wall would make any difference. The cards can serve as "hooks" simply by remembering them. Putting 78 cards on the wall, like the seats in a theatre, might make for a useful memory system. I explored this possibility at viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1042 and the post following. But it is the act of visualizing them in rows at a theatre that would be the basis of the system, not actually putting them anywhere, except maybe to explain the system to someone, I will grant you that. Even there, I cannot see how the patterns in the backgrounds of the cards would play any role. Please explain.

I expect that you will refer me again to your original account of the "kilim". Well, fine, but then the only argument for it is... the "kilim" itself. There's nothing wrong with that, I suppose. When you get down to it, perhaps either you see it or you don't, and otherwise its proponent is reduced to helplessness. I know the feeling.

Perhaps you were trying to be funny this time mikeh - but IF I really do not know why you would go down this road?

If you start reading on the 1st page and go through with it up to this point you should get the impression that this thread is ABOUT the THICKness of the PMB set that was not reported - but NOW it is - sloppy but still something to work on.

So your assumption ...

I was just trying to clarify how the thickness of the cards contributed to your argument. Apparently it plays no role, i.e. is irrelevant. Well, that's something.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1084&p=18588#p18588

... is neither funny or smart or expedient or informed.
So READING still is a matter for substantiated questions OR conclusions.

The special conditions of the SF (PMB) Tarot set (+ the CY and the BB sets - including the KILIM + the HOLES + and all other hitherto acclaimed peculiarities that I'm sure you as a really interested READER can find when you go through the Tarotée-Thread - CAN not be of importance HERE.

Tarotée - The Back-Door To The Secret
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1044

When you search for revelations there for what the KILIM is used you would NOT search in vain. I promise.
And when you should find it necessary to widen your knowledge on the HOW there would be the appropriate place to ask some SUBSTANTIATED questions with QUOTES that YOU found YOURSELF in the THERE provided MATERIAL.
You do that all the time in other threads when you refer to root-sources. Sometimes you even give a short summary on a complicated subject when you REALLY TRY to UNDERSTAND something NEW to YOU.

THIS would be a nice approach I think - and I feel very inclined to answer to such an earnest approach accordingly.
You could start with the thread PDF and tell me what you did understand - and from there we could go to every post that I made there.

HERE is not the place to talk about the usage of the KILIM. HERE the (by you IGNORED pattern that sets the 3 V(S) sets apart from other BIG sets) serves only as a classifier to prove that they deserve their own category.

Other BIG sets may work totally different for whatever purposes that I'm really not concerned with here.
And I explained THAT TOO somewhere me thinks ...

So - If you should REALLY wish our "conversation" (that really is not so much one at this point ... ) to "bloom" and "flourish" you should really try a more "conventional approach" - and the correct thread ...

Adrian