Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#81
Greetings Huck!

Thanks for stopping by and informing me about the opinion about the thickness of old cards that you found on another forum.

BUT I've NEVER had a „question about the thickness of old cards“ in general and from my statements in this topic and elsewhere it should be abundantly clear why this is of no concern for me.
When you did indeed find something in my words that invoked this belief in your mind please quote so that I can be more clear about that!

It would be great though when the author who seems to be on good terms with The Beinecke Library and praises their helpfulness on the thickness measurement matter could get the concerned thickness data of the there held „Visconti Tarot“ from The Cary Collection of Playing Cards – otherwise known as the Cary-Yale Tarocchi or the Visconti di Modrone cards.

The whole set:
http://brbl-dl.library.yale.edu/vufind/ ... t&type=tag

1 item:
http://brbl-dl.library.yale.edu/vufind/Record/3432602

Here you can see that the measurements provided are equally sloppy as the measurements at The Morgan:
Physical Description:
1 card
col.
19 x 9 cm.
This is of course totally unacceptable in a scientific field when those items are considered „PLAYING CARDS“ because the THICKNESS of each item (in this case MORE than 78 (!!) items) would add to an UNmanageable thickness for the whole pack – considering the roughly 1,5 mm for each original item that Mr. Voelkle provided for the Visconti-Sforza Tarot in his care > 12 cm for the whole pack!

If these rectangles should be of less thickness they would have been broken while playing AND if they would be thicker they would be an even MORE clumsy block in the hands of the "players" - unfit to be shuffled and so unfit for a "card play" with "playing cards" - no?

More here with all explanations and links:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1084&p=18324#p16935

These (and the Brera-Brambilla set in The Pinacoteca di Brera:)

http://pinacotecabrera.org/en/

... share a similar make-up with the Visconti-Sforza Tarot (PMB) in The Morgan Library who where introduced at length here with my findings and analysis of Mr. Voelkle's measurements he provided in his answer to my request.

The whole point of this topic here was/is to prove that ESPECIALLY the handmade Tarots of the Visconti (and later Sforza too) - which are all described to be made of CARDBOARD which is considerably thicker than paper – were NEVER MEANT to be PLAYING CARDS.

What my opinion about their purpose is (was) I have also described in detail in several topics and comments:
They were MEANT to be HUNG on a wall (look at their well used HOLES) in special configurations and changing patterns due to a Master-plan that can be REconstructed from several details on a grid like the Kilim Carpet in the background of ALL personas of ALL Visconti family sets – so that The BOOK could be read that they present.

All the different specifics of their consistent mixed media make-up combined with the now available (still very sloppy!) thickness measurements for the PMB by Mr. Voelkle which prove now that they were not playing cards AT ALL and their abrasion patterns and HOLES in all of them point in this direction.

I did this above write-up just out of the top of my head.
Be back later perhaps.
And you could be more precise in the meantime – maybe?

I find it quite astonishing though that no-one (you included! - because here you would be one big step closer to your chess-like-assumption for early Tarot with an actual BOARD for the rectangles on which they would be placed – albeit with very different rules) would comment on the implications for this whole playing-card-drama that Mr. Kaplan set the stage for with his clearly by 50% falsified measurements which I explained already in detail.

You all claim to be after The Secret the rectangles hold - and you go for poems and paintings and genealogy and (catholic!) Christianity – but no-one seems to be interested in the FACTS:
measurements – mixed-media-make-up – usability in real-life-settings – abrasion patterns – suspicious holes – etc – etc – etc …

Why is that?

Adrian

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#82
Adrian Goldwetter wrote:Greetings Huck!

Thanks for stopping by and informing me about the opinion about the thickness of old cards that you found on another forum.

BUT I've NEVER had a „question about the thickness of old cards“ in general and from my statements in this topic and elsewhere it should be abundantly clear why this is of no concern for me.
Greetings, Adrian,

Well, you're not alone, may be somebody else finds it interesting.

..
This is of course totally unacceptable in a scientific field when those items are considered „PLAYING CARDS“ because the THICKNESS of each item (in this case MORE than 78 (!!) items) would add to an UNmanageable thickness for the whole pack – considering the roughly 1,5 mm for each original item that Mr. Voelkle provided for the Visconti-Sforza Tarot in his care > 12 cm for the whole pack!
I remember, that you started with about 3.5 mm in your calculation. Then I said, that I can't imagine that because it's too thick, and you wasn't content with this. Now it are in reality only 1.5 mm and you call this too thick. Well, it weren't (likely) not 78 cards and I calculate for 70 cards 10.5 cm, far less than the 24.5 cm before. ... :-) , well, it's difficult to become happy.

...
All the different specifics of their consistent mixed media make-up combined with the now available (still very sloppy!) thickness measurements for the PMB by Mr. Voelkle which prove now that they were not playing cards AT ALL and their abrasion patterns and HOLES in all of them point in this direction.
I'm not sure, if this is proven with this. But, anyway, I found your engagement in this question remarkable.
I did this above write-up just out of the top of my head.
Be back later perhaps.
And you could be more precise in the meantime – maybe?
... .-) ... More precise than 10.5 cm or 70 cards? Or better precise as 12.0 cm and 78 cards?
I find it quite astonishing though that no-one (you included! - because here you would be one big step closer to your chess-like-assumption for early Tarot with an actual BOARD for the rectangles on which they would be placed – albeit with very different rules) would comment on the implications for this whole playing-card-drama that Mr. Kaplan set the stage for with his clearly by 50% falsified measurements which I explained already in detail.
I think, I spoke about the length of c. 2 cigarettes, not Mr. Kaplan. As far I remember, I gave Mr. Kaplan's page, where I could see how large they were, but Kaplan didn't give it in mm, only in printed size. As I hadn't a lineal, I took a cigarette and calculated c. 2 cigarettes. Perhaps I should have taken a pocket book. Moewig publisher, Pier Anthony, Der Gott von Tarot, is about 3mm too high, and maybe 3-4 cm too broad. But that's not too large, that one couldn't play with them. Possibly unusual, not very practical, at least for our modern understanding.

Charles VI cards, 17.8x9.3 mm
Rothschild Tarock 18.5x9.0 mm, larger than the Visconti -Sforza cards
Goldschmidt 14.0x6.5 mm
Mameluck cards 25,3x9.6 mm, much larger
Leber Tarocchi 13,4x6,4 mm
Ambras deck, 15,5x9.7 mm
Stuttgarter Jagdspiel 19,0*12,0 mm, larger
Hofämterspiel 13,8*9,8 mm

That's from Detlev Hoffmann 1972

I don't see tack holes everywhere. Rothschild cards seem to have one.

What shall one do? They loved the cards that way. Big cards for big men in 1452, big cars for big men in 2016. Bigger is better. That's the usual macho instinct. Perhaps some were used occasionally for decoration. Who knows? There's no guarantee on that.

Happy solstice, we're near to it ...
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#83
Adrian wrote,
It would be great though when the author who seems to be on good terms with The Beinecke Library and praises their helpfulness on the thickness measurement matter could get the concerned thickness data of the there held „Visconti Tarot“ from The Cary Collection of Playing Cards – otherwise known as the Cary-Yale Tarocchi or the Visconti di Modrone cards.
Yes, I noticed that, too. We should get the facts. How thick are the Visconti cards? And for that matter, the d'Este cards as well. So do you want to write Mr. Timothy Young, or should I? I don't want to intrude on your inquiries, as you are very definitely onto something. But I will do so if you do not.

As far as whether such large and thick cards were actually used for playing cards, or for some unknown but perhaps discoverable purpose,I would note what Timothy Husband says about the Stuttgart cards of c. 1430 (World in Play, 1016, p. 15):
The high quality of the painting and the remarkably good state of preservation indicate that the pack was likely commissioned as a collector's item rather than for play.
Or is that too simplistic? Of course he does not give the thickness of these cards. They are now back in Stuttgart, I assume, and it would be good to write that museum, too (at the Leinfelden, what Husband calls the "Deutsches Spielkartenmuseum, Landesmuseum Wuertenberg, Leinfelden-Echterlingen"). There are several other old luxury decks whose thickness could be measured. Then we would have some idea of whether the designs on the cards--subject matter, grids, diamond patterns, etc.--had anything to do with how thick they were, or if it was just the state of technology and commissioner's preference for a card of that artistic quality. There is nothing better than facts, to be sure, and the more the better. Whether we will agree on their interpretation is another matter.

Tack-holes could have been made for exhibition purposes, or simply for hanging them up to let the paint dry, if the workshop was short on bench space. The d'Este tarot cards also have tack-holes.

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#84
Thank you so much mikeh for this great interesting and interested reply!

I will be back later tomorrow with a detailed evaluation of your proposals.

ARE THESE "the Stuttgart cards of c. 1430" you are referring to?
http://cards.old.no/1430-stuttgart/

If so they seem to be more close to a normal playing card game with their more exotic personage.
4 sets of cards belonging to 4 different "totems".

1: Waterbirds (historically by the catholic church considered as fish so they could be eaten while fasting - and spiritually in several (today taken as primitive) cultures considered as connected with the rebirth of their tribes people.

2: Birds of prey (more about them in different contexts tomorrow ... )

3: Hounds (more about them in different contexts tomorrow ... )

4: Stags (more about them in different contexts tomorrow ... )

Some cards are missing (obviously 3) but in reality probably more?

So this could be a pretty normal make-up for a exotic card game with 4 suits of 10 in a slightly different order plus 4 accompanying "courts" in a slightly different make-up and oder. The Kings and Queens could be missing.
While the Princes and Princesses are present.

"Finding a match" could be a theme for that game :)

I must now grab my dream by her curly hair.
Again thank you mikeh for your input and tomorrow I'll be back!

Adrian

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#86
Hi mikeh.

1st: for some reason my browser did only show the cards there and not the text. Now that I see that all (and more!) has been commented on already - so there won't be use for further comments on these cards by me. Apologies!

So back to your original reply:
Yes, I noticed that, too. We should get the facts. How thick are the Visconti cards?
Exactly!

And for that matter, the d'Este cards as well.
These?
https://queenoftarot.com/tarot_decks/26

To know how thick they are could be interesting too of course but since they do not share the set from the Visconti family "cards" THEY can not be part of the same Tarot "plan" the Visconti family "cards" embody.

a) NO consistent background structure that would serve as the "board" for the "game"
b) Each "card" has TWO holes from a nail with a supposedly BIG head which left it's mark on some.
c) They were fixed permanently to a wall!
d) Aside from some darkening they suffered nearly NO abrasion or damage. They were NOT used in any way.
e) These seem to have been made for DECORATION as a COLLECTOR's item (like your quoted assumptions)
Maybe these "cards" were not fixed to a wall on the first day of their arrival and lay around as a decorative item in a glassed box or something and later someone had the idea to present the whole pack in it's splendor on a wall as a communication piece.

Nevertheless once one accepts the possibility of an oriental (and not Christian) tell-tale-background for Tarot it becomes fathomable why the d'Este "cards" were decorated with certain scenes and details which present only folklore and wisdom for a collector with no real expertise of the matter.

When someone goes to a museum and sees an ancient ritualistic item that leaves an impression of exotic lair in him and he has no means to come by the real thing he may today go to a Chinese vendor to have something alike fashioned that breathes the scent he seeks ...

That - and much more - was the purpose that I said somewhere that one could not LEARN anything from the d'Este cards concerning The Secret of Tarot.

But It would only be scientifically sufficient to have all measurable date on all available decks of course - like you seem to suggest too. Yes!

I'm totally fine with your suggestion to take the interrogator's role in this case.
My veiled correspondence with Mr. Voelkle is here out in the open so that you can maybe look for better questions than mine to get more precise measurements and perhaps the measuring methods which are abundant of course.

You should consider that only the most elevated single point on a subject can be the aim for the measuring device and those subjects are very irregular concerning their overall thickness.
All off them have a painted "brim" with floral motifs.
It is a tricky task to figure out the height for the whole pack when you can not stack them really upon each-other. and a normal sliding caliper could only give sloppy data.

That said: if you should need suggestions - anytime!
Tack-holes could have been made for exhibition purposes, ...
Yes - like I said above ...
... or simply for hanging them up to let the paint dry, ..
No. No artist in his right mind would do that because it would destroy his work without need!
... if the workshop was short on bench space.
You have no personal experience with such settings I assume.
The ART that is produced there comes first - above all else.
Your children can go without sleep when you need a place to comfort your art.

I try not to be picky here - but to understand about art (real ART and real ARTISTs) you must walk some miles in their shoes and you wouldn't come to such a solution as your tack-holes proposal above.
The d'Este tarot cards also have tack-holes.
Yes. What I think of them I scratched on only so far above.
There is nothing better than facts, to be sure, and the more the better.
Totally!

Adrian

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#87
Hi Huck.

This reply is a reference to your last post here:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1084&p=18339#p18332

I must apologize - but I can not make much sense of it concerning this topic or my reply to your last post.

Your last post:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1084&start=70#p18324

My reply to that:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1084&start=70#p18330

I get the feeling that you are deflecting - but that's perhaps only me. Sorry.
Why would you make up circumstances that can easily be proven or - in this case DISproven - with quotes from the thread? I'm not up for that.

Why would you bring a whole set of decks that clearly defy the scope of this topic to the table with no reason (in MY mind only of course!)?

So again: sorry - but I do not understand what you are up to with this (to me!) weird statements - most of them solved without YOU taking notice of that solution.

mikeh is of different opinion too concerning the purpose of these findings I presented here - but at least he takes an interest in the matter and has the wish to further the cause based on logic and measurements - I had the hope that you found it in your heart too to work together ... and maybe you do - but I do not understand you.

Sorry.

Adrian

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#90
Well, that was nice, that report from the Beinecke. Thanks, Steve, for again giving the pertinent information and links. So I guess the answer, for the Visconti cards, is 1.3 or so mm. For the d'Este, 1.14 or so mm in the same general places. Did I read it right? By comparison, the PMB were 1.5 mm, 1st artist, and less than 1 mm., second artist. Strange, that the Visconti cads should be thinner than the PMB. Perhaps the PMB measurements were maximum, i.e. including the folded edges, which would compare to 1.45 for the Visconti. Anyway, we can see the trend. Technologically, it suggests that the 2nd artist PMB were done later than the d'Este, but as usual there are too many variables to draw that conclusion. Anyway, that's what I was interested in. None of these decks appears to be designed for playing cards with, as opposed to other uses.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron