Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#21
Image


Image


Large picture:
http://a-tarot.eu/p/2016/cas-03.jpg

"Il Castello dei Tarocchi"
The scanner doesn't transport "gold" ... actually, that, what appears as "black with spots" is gold with red spots. With the finger-tips you can perceive, that the surface is structured, the gold seems to be on the red, and the figures above on top of the other parts (these are plain, same height). The whole structured picture gives a 3-dimensional impression.

The differences in height are less than a very thin paper (paper for cigarettes), far less than 1 mm, I estimate.

One can measure, how thick paper is: I've here a book (pocket book) with 800 pages (= 400 pieces of usual cheap book paper), c. 4 cm = 40 mm. So roughly 10 papers = 1 mm, or one paper = 0,1 mm.

In this free-hand scan a few centimeters above the scanner-lamp, you can see, that black is indeed gold.

Image
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#22
Hi Huck!

I really do not understand WHY you would post a picture of a BOOK about the Visconti-Sforza Tarot ("cards).
Whatever there could be said about THIS item does in NO way apply to the topic HERE.

If you want to post a picture of "a card" that applies HERE you should go with The MORGAN - THERE they have the ORIGINALS. But not "The WORLD" so it seems - at least not on display.
Why "The WORLD" should be of special interest here is also a mystery to me because HERE it is about the general setup of the 74 surviving "cards" that is in general the same. The differences and their resulting supposed measurements are documented already in the specific JPGs with text.
"The WORLD" - just like the other recovered 19 Great Secrets - would go into my 3,8 mm "thickness" category - as expressed in the text of the JPGs.

If there should be any relevance to your post for this topic that I didn't get please explain with more and abiding words this time so that I can understand what the matter with this book is.

Here is a link to an actual printed card althought not a very good reprensentation - and we still couldn't do anthing with it on our (this) topic.

http://www.albideuter.de/html/visconti-sforza_21.html



cu

Adrian

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#23
Well, you spoke about thickness of cards, which somehow created 3d-effects. I gave an example, how modern printing technology created 3d effects with rather minimal thickness, by far not in the dimensions of 3,8 mm, as you had suggested.

btw ... do you know ...

Image

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

The small pieces of gold are so thin, that it swims in the liqueur, not immediately sinking to the ground.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#24
No Huck.

Actually I did not speak "about thickness of cards" in general - BUT about the thickness of the 74 survivors of ONE SPECIAL DECK that is named several times throughout our discussion already with link (although imprinted on the JPG 2. The GOAL) and measurements and description given at The MORGAN - the actual HOME of 35 of them today.

http://www.themorgan.org/collection/tarot-cards

Actually I did not speak about "somehow created 3d-effects" - BUT I MADE a 3-D MODEL of the defined 74 survivors of THAT ONE SPECIAL DECK .

If you did actually care to type that link to the collection at The MORGAN into your keyboard you could have SEEN with that there installed ZOOMIFY feature HOW 3-D they really are. You have them there under a MICROSCOPE strong enough to determine the SHADOWS the hemispherical marks on the gold layer cast.

This description is already written on JPG 3. The TASK - The 2nd Step.
What do you think why there is text on the JPGs?
To ignore it altogether so that this topic will end up deranged with useless comments?
It is a quite concise argument that I backed up with some graphics that can be followed all the way through until the WHOLE PACK of the 74 surviving "cards".

WHY should MODERN printing technique here in this topic be an ISSUE?

It's about the ORIGINAL artwork and how it happend that Mr. K made such useless and totally unfounded assumptions about a subject he had obviously absolutely no knowledge of (and couldn't have had because the 74 were never in one place in his lifetime - so far) and so poisoned the well for the believers in his work worldwide.

And naturally I know DANZIGER GOLDWASSER - a horrible brew for elderly women who want to appear "classy" with actual GOLD in their "drink" - and I referred to that gold leaf in there too before in a comment - that you obviously choose to ignore too - although it was typed text.

If you have the time - tools and money you should really give "imprinting gold leaf" a try and post it here so that we all can see how this works out.

You should - if you are really interested in this subject of this topic here - look at it once more from the beginning onward and try this time reading it actually - because 90 % of our "discussion " here is already THERE.

You asked me a page or so back if I did something intentionally - I declined and explained what I did there.
Maybe you could do me the same courtesy?

My question: >> ARE YOU DOING THIS INTENTIONALLY? <<

To me it seems that you act in a similar way as your Italian source when he replied to your letter.
I classified this behavior in a certain way that could apply to you as well - instead I chose to believe that you still are the earnest and respected researcher that the whole community around here and elsewhere knows.

Am I right still or not so much anymore?



Bewildered

Adrian

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#25
Adrian Goldwetter wrote: It's about the ORIGINAL artwork and how it happend that Mr. K made such useless and totally unfounded assumptions about a subject he had obviously absolutely no knowledge of (and couldn't have had because the 74 were never in one place in his lifetime - so far) and so poisoned the well for the believers in his work worldwide.

And naturally I know DANZIGER GOLDWASSER - a horrible brew for elderly women who want to appear "classy" with actual GOLD in their "drink" - and I referred to that gold leaf in there too before in a comment - that you obviously choose to ignore too - although it was typed text.
For somebody, who claimed not to know the work of Kaplan, you give here not really necessary negative statements. Sure, his books have errors, but life is easier for those, who come later, to note errors.
When I got Kaplan, Tarot Encyclopedia I, I learned a lot. The book was relative cheap for the customers, and a lot of readers profited from it, also from the following Encyclopedia II. The book was influential, and somehow it created Tarot history for the broad public.

Indeed, you noted Danziger Goldwasser before. I didn't remember that, I didn't learn about its existence from you, as I've observed it in my youth, and as other children I was fascinated, that one could drink gold and that this gold could swim.
I don't remember all, what you wrote, you're quite excessive with your often emotional style. I generally reduce such texts to that, what concerns me. I do that not only with your texts. I act in this way with intention, the world offers a lot of information, and not everything interests me.
You offered the opinion, that the PMB trump cards have the thickness of 3,8 mm. Well, I'm also interested, how thick these cards are.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#26
Hello Huck! Please accept my excuses for being late.

I did never say that I did not know Mr. K's work - in fact I own 1 or 2 books he published and once 15 years back maybe I ordered his complete encyclopedia through a close womanly friend who worked at a community library as a librarian for the library she worked in - for the section of esoterica - so that I could look at them any time I wanted.
I was due to our personal arrangement about library and other matters even able to take 1 volume a time to my place and I took a lot of Xerox-copies from all of them.

Mr. K's work was very informative - especially about the historical decks and matters.

You may have noticed though that I use in my work only sources that are available on-line. That is why I post often Wiki stuff. It is the stuff on the surface of the net. It is not that I don't know better or more exclusive sources - it is to show everyone who is interested that all that I'm saying is already THERE - right in front of everyone in front his fingertips.

But HERE in this topic exists only ONE often cited matter - and only THAT! : The Visconti-Sforza Tarot "cards" and their 3 dimensions. ONE dimension - the "thickness" - that is very easily measured with a CALIPER to determine the measurement IN caliper was kept from the trusting public to my amazement in totality - and Mr. K had a great deal to do with that (and to earn from it) when he made his quite moronic (or maybe not?) assumption about the 74 survivors of the PMB who were to HIS BEST KNOWLEDGE about the thickness (I'm sooo tired of that bloody word!) of TWO packs of NORMAL cigarettes! Right?

>> Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo ... the height is about that of two packs of normal cigarettes. <<

What I thought of that "statement" that is not even worthy of a preschooler I made quite clear I think!
On what grounds do YOU accuse ME of profiting from work of those who came before me?
Nothing I said here was due to anyone YOU would know - or else WE wouldn't have these TIRESOME discussions.
So your remark >> ...life is easier for those, who come later, to note errors. << doesn't sit quite well with me and is a factual fallacy concerning my texts here (and there).


You instead COULD make it easier (not only for me) if you would stick to the (THIS) topic.
You said about Mr. K's work:

>> The book was influential, and somehow it created Tarot history for the broad public. <<

AND THAT is exactly the point I was talking about above. And the PMB played a HUGE role in that scheme I was pointing at above. Without the PMB there was no HISTORY that would SELL!
So MAKING them "CARDS" was quite essential for the ploy because he wouldn't know otherwise WHAT to DO with them because he didn't KNOW what they in reality were/are.

So he made something up that everybody with 2 living brain cells should/could have dismantled at the first moment. Why didn't ANYONE? Why didn't YOU?

You BELIEVED him. And all others did too.

And he could SELL cards and books and merch to them. And probably to you too.
Today his empire of thought is quite exclusive and well accepted. It became self-sufficient.

It is a living breathing entity now that lives only on the thoughts that others DON'T think. Nearly impossible to kill because people LOVE not to think for themselves and buy stuff that is worthless and NICE.


I really don't know if I mentioned DANZIGER GOLDWASSER before in the other thread.
But I'm still quite floored with you bringing it up HERE. WHY?
Because you remembered a story from way back that you didn't even mention when you posted this astounding picture and a meaningless statement (because the literature is abundant that mentions a LAYER of gold)?

Your next sentence about my writing stile - that you call excessive - is the crown of all evil in my world of discussions with you Huck! I can not reply to that in an orderly fashion because I can't stop laughing and rolling around. I think in I-Net slang ROFL would be the Acronym for this apparent situation.

Then you give your procedure of dissecting new information before digesting a fraction of it that your brain deems worthy of keeping on the record (which I found a bit devastating at first when I read it - but when I saw your closing comment you made me very happy and all my grief was washed away in a moment of "Yay me!")

>> I generally reduce such texts to that, what concerns me. I do that not only with your texts. I act in this way with intention, the world offers a lot of information, and not everything interests me. <<

I have nothing to add here - and that means a LOT!

But in the next and last sentence finally you come to the urge that made you post these lines of joy:
>> Well, I'm also interested, how thick these cards are. <<

Let me say: "Well - I'm interested too - and so I made some pictures and a post (and I did not get to post them here up to this moment - maybe tomorrow) there (so that we both and hopefully a lot of other citizens get closer to that amazing goal)" :

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.ph ... ost4571448



Y :ymsmug: u can have a l :) :D k t :ympeace: :-bd !

Adrian

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#28
What a miraculous post Huck and quite well fitting your afore mentioned procedure of communication by bypassing information and amassing miraculous thoughts of other people for a new well founded and and even more miraculous comment.
I salute you for that and wish that the 2 % of research concerning the "thickness" (here goes the bloody word again... ) of the PMB "cards" could be called yours. But a man can dream I suppose...

It's early for me and it could be that I'm dreaming still - but as it is always a pleasure to cross some blades in the mist of dawn I couldn't let this rare opportunity slip away without spilling some...

Adrian

P.S. And for the sake of research: please be back with more excruciating information!
Inspiration for that could be found here:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... into-gold/

http://momus.ca

http://www.last.fm/music/Comus


P.P.S. It just came to me (while I read your 2 % comment on my research again with tears in my eyes) that (according to your above published system of absorbing new information by "condensing" it) it could very well be you did not scroll down to absorb the 3 new JPGs from The MORGAN because you "condensed" the info in there BEFORE you got there.

I thought to myself: "Mhhh - WHY would he say such a horrible thing (the 2 % defamation I mean)... How could he sleep at night with that on his researcher's conscience... ??"

Anyway - nobody will know. I just couldn't stand the thought to deprive a researching friend and fellow on this hard trail in dire need of the truth from the insight into the entrails of the cardboard... maybe that's just me.

I'm a really nice guy.

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#29
Just a heads up for interested readers (this is a duplicate of the post I made on Aeclectic 1 minute ago):

The MORGAN replied!

So we got now a substantial report from Mr. Voelkle who happens to be a very thorough guy and though provided not only the true measurements BUT some further inconsistencies so far unknown!

I'll be back with a new model and comments!

This should take some days - but of course you are free to follow your endeavors wherever they may take you...

Have a good time as ever

Adrian

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron