Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#11
...and to keep this post real I've gathered some real world amazon offerings for cardboard AND I found therein the WORD for paper "thickness": caliper (measured in '').

Here are 3 products:

1st: 0.05" (0.127 cm which rounds up to 1.3 mm)

http://www.amazon.com/Premium-EXTRA-HEA ... D7RCC2GJHE


2nd: 0.08'' (0.203 cm which rounds up to 2.0 mm)

http://www.amazon.com/Chipboard-Caliper ... RVBSX8NNFE


3rd: 0.10'' ( 0.254 cm which rounds up to 2.5 mm)

http://www.amazon.com/Chipboard-Scrapbo ... F0QGQT3Q5C


Here too you can see that I went in my estimation for the "card" bodies with the medium size - so NO nitpicking.

All of these products are available on the free market (or in your neighborhood for that matter that is of concern here with the model the most: YOU could go out and FEEL them to decide in what caliper you would trust to carry the artistic burden.)

Especially the heaviest quality has recommendations for >> scrapbooks, albums, frames, displays, covers, backs, boxes and containers as well as for durable, natural, artistic works and other crafts. << what should be right up our alley.

In addition it should have been possible (and the obvious way to go) for all the experts who dealt [sic!] with the "cards" personally to give the correct caliper for every one of them because height and width are given in their respective dimensions all over the literature.

Adrian

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#12
Mr K has a picture with different sizes of playing-cards. If you don't have the book, it's a pity for you, cause it's a rather practical tool, if you're interested to work on Tarot history themes. Likely I wrote this to you already some time ago.
About 17 cm height and a little more is a common value for big Trionfi cards.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#13
Yes you did Huck.

And the HEIGHT is not the questionable measurement here - you can see this measurement right there in the JPGs I posted.

The "thickness" of every card of the BIG handcrafted Trionfi cards from the Visconti (-Sforza) family is the subject in question - and adding those 74 measurements to a calculation for the "thickness" of the WHOLE PACK of the survivors.

The topic here it is the PMB Tarot.

OR are you talking about the "thickness" of the supposed PACK here?

>> About 17 cm height and a little more is a common value for big Trionfi cards. <<

Than my 1st request should be for the quote with context because I didn't read anything like that ANYWHERE before.
My question would be HOW would you handle a pack of cards that is >> 17 cm [height] and a little more << thick while shuffling them.

170 mm is nearly 7 times the "thickness" of the Dal Negro cards who are 25 mm "thick" (175 mm).
If you can afford it you could buy 7 of the Dal Negro kind and glue 7 cards together until you have done that 74 times and PLEASE give SHUFFLING a try.

(And a documentary video of your efforts would be very welcome of course :D )

Adrian

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#15
No of course not Huck.

I was just wondering why you would talk about the actual height of the "cards" and I said that and why I was wondering.

The height is published everywhere and no matter at all in this topic because this measurement is included in the posted JPGs. So WHY would YOU bing it up?

I must ask you this because I wonder what the reason could be?!

Let me be clear: The height of the PMB (mikeh made this acronym official around here as a tag for the concerned Pack of cards when I remember correctly :) ) is well known as is the width because you can find it for example right down below the pictures of every card on display at The MORGAN.

This topic is about the THICKNESS of every single "card" of the surviving PMB "cards" so that the TOTAL thickness of the complete pack of the surviving PMB "cards" can be estimated nearly correctly.

With this out of the way now I apologize when I came across otherwise.
This would have NOT been my intention at ALL because I am thankful that you wrote the 2 letters as you said so that this matter could be discussed on correct measurements.

Cheers

Adrian

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#16
I haven't written so much, you could have easily managed to see what I said. I wrote:

"The cards have high extensions, and it's plausible, that they are a little thicker than usual."

I talked about thickness AND extensions and a specific relation between them: Larger cards need more thickness than smaller cards.
You had then a first problem to recognize what "extensions" means. And then you had other problems. And you mixed my 17 cm into something, which I didn't talk about.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#17
Now it gets complicated - or so it seems - at least to me.

For damage control - that is confirming the information given so far in this thread by me - I would ask you and everyone else kindly to READ the opening post with the JPGs very thoroughly.

All problems and questions I have in principle concerning the PMB "cards" should be in there.

I'm grateful that you had the patience to explain to me what the "extensions" were you mentioned. Now I know.

You made a very welcome statement Huck when you said: >> Larger cards need more thickness than smaller cards. <<

Of course - but HOW thick EXACTLY has a "card" from the pack in question to be to meet the "installments" made on them?

We have so far your's (very vague) and mine (so precise that I made the "real-life-feel-alike-model" due to my knowledge with a lot of secondary info too) estimations.
If nothing NEW can be added at this point of our discussion we should patiently wait for the respond(s) to our enquiries - what brings me to the next point in question:

You wrote:

>> I haven't written so much, you could have easily managed to see what I said. I wrote:

"The cards have high extensions, and it's plausible, that they are a little thicker than usual." <<

That is exactly a quote from your before post - HOW could this be the content of the LETTERS you said you wrote on my behalf to solve the "thickness problem?

I talked about THEM when I said: >> This would have NOT been my intention at ALL because I am thankful that you wrote the 2 letters as you said so that this matter could be discussed on correct measurements. <<

You know what? It's late around here and it seems we are talking in circles.
I'll grab a bunch of sleep by it's curly blond hair and visit this sticky ground tomorrow again with a fresh mind!

Sleep tight

Adrian

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#18
On 2nd thought I must come again and ask you something Huck because there seems to be a confusion of language - or better about the "choice" of words - here between you and me at the most - and their generally accepted meaning in communications.

I'll go with "thefreedictionary" here because they gather info from a lot of sources.

"Extension" was the word you used in the meaning of

>> [2nd from top] "3. the length, range, etc, over which something is extended; ... " <<
referring to the "measurements" of the "cards" questioned here in this topic by me.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/extension

I understood this special word hitherto only in the meaning of "adding something to an already existing structure" like "hair extensions" for example.

You explained it to me - I understood and learned something new.

The Question:

In the same post right there in the 1st line you wrote:

>> Well, I've written two letters, concerning your question. <<

What I took as an answer to my question to you in the before post:

>> What do you think? Would you be interested to set that in motion? <<

referring to the in the same post described "Italian estimation" that I suggested you could maybe start through your on trionfi.com published contacts to Italian researchers in the field.
I understood that the 2 letters (concerning my question) you were telling me about in this opening line were the ones I suggested you could write (even when I didn't "say it" actually).

In the post before the last one when I wrote in my apology to you:

>> This would have NOT been my intention at ALL because I am thankful that you wrote the 2 letters as you said so that this matter could be discussed on correct measurements. <<

I was referring to ACTUAL WRITTEN messages (letters - e-mails -PMs) concerning the "thickness" of the questionable "cards" who are the topic here to your "Italian connections" in my (and all other researchers favor) to get this "Italian estimation" started somehow IF Mr. Voelkle doesn't grace me (and all other researchers) with his personal favor of an informed reply to my (our?) query as concerned citizens of the Tarot republic.

When you answered the last post instead (and now we come to the poodle's nucleus!) you wrote:

>> I haven't written so much, you could have easily managed to see what I said. I wrote:
"The cards have high extensions, and it's plausible, that they are a little thicker than usual." <<

I did express my bewilderment about the content of that sentence already - So the REAL QUESTION is this:

Have you actually - with your typing or writing fingers - created TWO LETTERS (PMs - messages- e-mails) to really existing persons in the real research world concerning the "thickness-measurement-problem-with-the PMB-"cards" to hopefully set the "Italian estimation" in motion somehow??

Obviously I (me-myself&I) could NOT have known the CONTENT of such LETTERS - so WHY would you say that "I" "could have easily managed to see what >> you << WROTE (to THEM?)." ??

And what you - obviously - wrote was (quote:)
>> "The cards have high extensions, and it's plausible, that they are a little thicker than usual." <<

This was what you said to ME.
And to THEM TOO??

So there maybe even an (to me hitherto!) unknown or hidden meaning to the word LETTER(s)?
ALL is possible - just like you see in my model!

More to the point still:

Did you write 2 letters?
OR: Did you NOT (write 2 LETTERS)?



An explanation would be appreciated dearly!

Adrian

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#19
One letter got a reply (maybe this answers your question):

I wrote:
I've a question: Do you know, how thick the cards of Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo are? Or - if you don't know - do you know the thickness of other comparable cards in the same style?
Somebody suggested 3,3 - 3,8 mm, which I considered as much too high, cause it would result in the condition, that all cards together would have a height of at least c. 25 centimeter. Do you have an idea?

Reply:
I have no idea of the exact thickness of the early Naibi and Trionfi, but I imagine one half or less than suggested. Maybe as 3 or 4 of our cards taken together. Otherwise it would be impossible to keep a pack of Minchiate in one’s hand. In particular, if the most precious items had a layer of gold, this could be extremely thin, as common at the time for various applications.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#20
Thank you Huck!

I apologize for badgering you but I wanted to be sure if or if not. I hope you understand.

About your Post:

>> Reply:
I have no idea of the exact thickness of the early Naibi and Trionfi, but I imagine one half or less than suggested. <<

That's why I made the "model" because imagination won't do once you (or anyone) have (has) accepted some paradigm - in this case started by "experts (like Mr. K)" - who have NEVER seen the whole pack in actual APPEARANCE - but still "confirmed" with a thought-up STATEMENT that those "cards" were used for gaming at a table - because they were (Quote):

>> Kaplan I offers the sizes of cards, page 9.
Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo ... the height is about that of two packs of normal cigarettes. <<

I tried to show how ridiculous this "statement" is with simple math and descriptions of the qualities the cardboard should bring to the table.

And you (or me) can see this ((that imagination won't do once you (or anyone) have (has) accepted some paradigm)) right there in the 2nd half of the sentence:
>> ..., but I imagine one half or less than suggested. <<

Of course - he "imagines" because if they are "thicker" it would not be possible to "play" with them in a common assumed manner (and his whole world would go pooof... a psychologist would call such behavioral pattern defensive ego(tism) ")

https://www.eclecticenergies.com/ego/defensiveness.php

what follows right in the next sentence (and would in court be dismissed as "prejudgmental"):

>> ...Otherwise it would be impossible to keep a pack of Minchiate in one’s hand. In particular, if the most precious items had a layer of gold, this could be extremely thin, as common at the time for various applications. <<

That IS EXACTLY the point of this topic: It was (and would still be today - if they were released from their respective Foster Homes) impossible to play / to shuffle at first / and hold them "in one’s hand" while playing.

It seems to be a case of "das nicht sein kann - was nicht sein darf" (German proverb - meaning on Linguee: "What is not allowed cannot happen." Although it's a bit more complicated to translate a part of a poem of C. Morgenstern:

>> "The Impossible Fact" ("Die unmögliche Tatsache", 1910):
Weil, so schließt er messerscharf / Nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf.
"For, he reasons pointedly / That which must not, can not be." <<

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

I really would hope that (like in religion - no matter whose) more logical thought would conquer the ranks of believers - but thanks a lot for your worries and kind reply Huck!

Adrian

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron