Re: Pratesi June 2016, "The Third Rosenwald Sheet"

#11
One of the reason to suggest a date of c. 1465 in the earlier Rosenwald article ...
http://trionfi.com/rosenwald-tarocchi-sheet
... was the existence of the 2 Magician/Fools around this time, once found by Michael J. Hurst and the additional feature of a Fool/Magician without a second Fool or Magician inside the Rosenwald deck. We attempted once to celebrate this coincidence with this arrangement.

Image

written in November 2011, before Franco Pratesi had lots of findings of Trionfi notes in Florentine business books.

The both other Magician/Fools appeared in almanachs of the years close to 1465, it was from this perspective logical to conclude on a date near to 1465 for the Rosenwald, and the oldest note of Minchiate in 1466 by Luigi Pulci contributed to this suspicion.

A further (possible) confirmation for c. 1465 was the Arnold Esch report in 2013 with 107 new Trionfi documents between 1453 and 1465, from which some documents made it plausible, that Trionfi decks became "very cheap" around this time and were suddenly part of the mass-market. This was confirmed through the Bolognese document 1477, in which it seems, that Trionfi decks had then only 5/4 of the value of normal decks.

In the data known from the silk dealers (till 1460) Trionfi cards were always much more expensive than very cheap cards.

Well, we have, that the Rosenwald cards definitely looks as a mass-produced very cheap deck. From various perspectives it seemed plausible, that c. 1465 was a plausible date.

The "Perugia 1501" doesn't kill these suspicions. Our expectations around the time, when the first Rosenwald article was written, was, that the first deck made in the Rosenwald type was a deck without numbers. The Rosenwald itself looks, as if somebody had experimented with numbers and the Leinfelden of Perugia 1501 possibly had fixed numbers.
Mass-produced decks has better chances to stay long in business, being repeated very often by later producers. The effect, that players prefer cards, which they already know, is well known. If you find a deck, which clearly has a later date for unknown reasons, costume experts often have reason to date the design to a much earlier time.

The original engraver was very careful in the arrangement of the rows of the trumps, actually only the Fool/Magician and the strange 13th card Fortune are a surprise. If the 13th card Fortune was just a humble engraver error, or part of an earlier row of the trumps, we can't know.
On the technical side (of the row) we see, that the (later enduring) disappearance of "II Papessa" in the deck made it possible, that Fortune could leave its position 14 and could change to the also enduring position 9 (in Florentine decks), leaving all cards between 10-12 not affected and reducing the trumps from 21 to 20 with the result, that Death (earlier position 14) suddenly was 13, as later usual in many Trionfi and Tarot arrangements.

For the recently reactivated thread the order of trumps in Rosenwald is given with ...
9. Rosenwald sheet. No TITLES. Only numbers.

http://trionfi.com/0/j/d/rosenwald/

[0] x
[1] El bagatella
[2] La papessa
[3] Imperatrix
[4] Imperator
[5] El papa
[6] L'amore
[7] La temperantia
[8] La iusticia
[9] La fortezza
[10] Lo caro triumphale
[12] El gobbo

Not numbered:
La rotta • Lo impichato • La morte • El diavolo • Fuoco (Tower) • La stella • La luna • El sole •
El mondo • Lo angelo
.... but one should also observe the natural row of the motifs at the sheet:

1 Fool/Magician
2 Papessa
3 Empress
4 Emperor
5 Pope
6 Love
7 Temperance
8 Justice
9 Force
10 Chariot
11 Father Time
12 Hanged Man
13 Fortune
14 Death
15 Devil
16 Tower
17 Star
18 Moon
19 Sun
20 World
21 Angel

It is easily possible, that this once was a relevant and real trump row.

Image
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Pratesi June 2016, "The Third Rosenwald Sheet"

#12
Huck wrote
One of the reason to suggest a date of c. 1465 in the earlier Rosenwald article ...
http://trionfi.com/rosenwald-tarocchi-sheet
... was the existence of the 2 Magician/Fools around this time, once found by Michael J. Hurst and the additional feature of a Fool/Magician without a second Fool or Magician inside the Rosenwald deck. We attempted once to celebrate this coincidence with this arrangement.

Image

written in November 2011, before Franco Pratesi had lots of findings of Trionfi notes in Florentine business books.
I don't see a Magician/Fool. All I see is a Magician dressed like the Rosenwald Magician. Colorful hats attract attention. However the main point was to suggest an early date for the Rosenwald design, much earlier than 1501, and so in the time before numbers were put on the cards. That point is well taken, and the production in out of the way Perugia would seem to require at least some years to migrate that far. However as an argument for why there are no numbers on the upper row of the Rosenwald, it is not very convincing. It is easy enough to remove ornamentation and reduce the size of objects so as to fit in a number.

Huck wrote,
The original engraver was very careful in the arrangement of the rows of the trumps, actually only the Fool/Magician and the strange 13th card Fortune are a surprise. If the 13th card Fortune was just a humble engraver error, or part of an earlier row of the trumps, we can't know.
By "engraver error", I assume you mean on the Gobbio, which clearly has the number 11. If Fortune is 14, that numbe on the Gobbio has to be wrong, and number 12 instead. Yes, it is possible. But probable? There are the other type A orders to consider. The Rosenwald doesn't exist in isolation.

Image


There is absolutely no order of trumps--not only in type A but in any type--where Fortune is after the Hanged Man. In the Charles VI numbers (probably written in around the time of the Rosenwald), it goes Chariot-gap-Hermit-Hanged Man-Death, etc. The Colonna fills in the gap, Chariot-Wheel. So Fortune/Wheel at 11 fits two existing decks, including the one probably originally closest in time and place to the Rosenwald original design, while at 14 it fits none, nowhere close. That is a fairly good argument, I think, but not conclusive. Your suggestion has going for it the arrangement on the sheet. But it is not a "mistake", as you put it, not to follow the ordinal order on the sheet. The Cary Sheet (no numbers) only partially follows an order The BAR/Rothschild sheets (no numbers), which appears to follow ancient designs, only partially follow an order. There is no particular reason why the sequence has to correspond to the arrangement on the page.

In this case, the Rosenwald, it does seem that the cutter tried to make the arrangement correspond to the numbers. But he got something wrong (besides the two VIIIs): either the number on the Gobbio is wrong, or he put Fortune in the wrong place. Comparison with the other type A orders suggests the latter alternative.

One argument for the other alternative might be if it could be established that there was the practice of giving the designs to one person and the numbers to another. Then putting the cards in order on the page would facilitate putting the numbers on correctly. Again, either the engraver of the designs did it fully in accord with that procedure, or he made a mistake. Given that we know the numberer made at least one mistake, we might conclude that he was the less experienced or competent of the two, thus the one to be given the relatively simple job of numbering. If so, the more competent would have been given the designs, and presumably thereby less likely to make a mistake.

This argument has many "ifs". It might equally be said that because putting the numbers on is simpler, it would have been given to the master, as less likely to make a mistake of this kind, sometimes difficult to correct. Also, while he is numbering, he can review whether the designs are executed properly. If the designs are in the wrong order on the page, it doesn't matter, because the numbers can correct such a mistake. But even so, the master did make a mistake too, a real one (the two VIIIs). Why not? He has many cutters to supervise. And in this case it is easy to correct; you just add another I. The argument from a division of labor goes nowhere.

I don't suppose you can tell what the number is on the Fortitude card of the Leinfelden, the card with the mistaken number VIII on the Washington sheet. It wouldn't prove anything one way or another, but it would be of interest.

Re: Pratesi June 2016, "The Third Rosenwald Sheet"

#13
mikeh wrote: I don't see a Magician/Fool. All I see is a Magician dressed like the Rosenwald Magician.
... :-) ... well, I see a Magician with a Fool's cap at all 3 pictures. And I see, that the theory about 96 cards in the hypothetical Rosenwald Minchiate has some relevance with the condition, that the Fool or the Magician is missing or both are merged to one figure.
The Rosenwald has clear signs of the Minchiate, with human/animal figures at the knight cards, also different gender (2 women/ 2 men) for the Fante, one shouldn't overlook this argument.
Also we see the first zero at a card deck in the Sola-Busca Tarocchi, much later than c. 1465. We've the example of the Hofämterspiel, at which the 4 Fools are connected to the number 1. For the reconstruction of the row of the 14 Bembo trumps there is the argument, that the Fool should have been associated to the No. 11. The general use of zero in the mid of 15th century might have been not very common.

...
By "engraver error", I assume you mean on the Gobbio, which clearly has the number 11. If Fortune is 14, that numbe on the Gobbio has to be wrong, and number 12 instead. Yes, it is possible. But probable? There are the other type A orders to consider. The Rosenwald doesn't exist in isolation.
Image


Image


Although I myself might have noted occasionally, that Fortune is at the 14th place on the sheet trump row (I had this error once), I learned at these days, that it is at position 13. Father Time is at position 11 as usual (but has the number 12), the Hanged Man has the position 12 (as usual).

We don't have much orders from Florence. The Strambotto (also only 21 trumps) is believed to be from Florence:
Strambotti de Triumphi

Mi racomando a quel angelo pio,
al mondo, al sole, alla luna & lo stello,
alla saetta & a quel diavol rio,
la morte, el traditore, el vechierello.
la rota, el caro & giusticia di Dio,
forteza & temperanza & amor bello,
al papa, imperatore, imperatrice,
al bagatello, al matto più felice.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=334&p=5588&hilit=strambotto#p5588
... from 2010, we discussed it then with some detail, you yourself brought then the passage:
So it’s first the Rosenwald and Strambotto, then the Charles VI etc. numbering. But if Huck (following Steve) is right, in his most recent posts, the Strambotto might be before the Rosenwald. If so, we seem to have first no Popess, then Popess, then no Popess.
In November 2011 Franco's older Rosenwald article appeared, and changed the time sequence, Rosenwald should be older than the strambotto.

Interestingly the Chariot in the Strambotto (position 9 in the strambotto, 10 in Rosenwald, 10 in Minchiate) is lower than Fortune (position 10 in strambotto, 13 in Rosenwald, 9 in Minchiate), Justice (8 in strambotto, 8 in Rosenwald, 8 in Minchiate) is higher than Fortitude (7 in strambotto, 9 in Rosenwald, 7 in Minchiate), all in contrast to the later Minchiate.

Looking at this: "Justice = 8" seems to have been a fixed idea (well, we have suspicions, why), Fortitudo is given to places (7, 9), which are possible according "with Papessa" or "without Papessa".
Fortune, if really at 13th position in the game, likely was moved with a replacement of II Papessa with 0 Fool, which caused various effects on the row.

I search for the numbers of Charles VI (also from Florence) according the interpretation of Ross, but experience big difficulties. In the "order of trumps" thread it seems, that they are not given there there. Justice seems to be 8, Fortitudo 7, Chariot 10, so Fortune likely was 9.
Well, I note an interesting feature at the Hanging Man (Charles VI) ... the number is at the bottom of the card, not at the top (as usual). Which likely means, that the writer of the numbers didn't know the correct upside/downside of the card and had been for this reason somebody, who wasn't used to the general motif, likely not an Italian and not in Italy. Possibly he compared it with a Minchiate deck, and noted the numbers from this deck on the Charles VI cards.

Image


Another point:

Image

http://expositions.bnf.fr/renais/grand/035.htm

The Charles VI Fool has a sort of Fool's cap. And the Magician is missing here, too.
There is absolutely no order of trumps--not only in type A but in any type--where Fortune is after the Hanged Man. In the Charles VI numbers (probably written in around the time of the Rosenwald) ...
No, I don't think so (that the numbers were given in the time of the original Rosenwald).
The Colonna fills in the gap, Chariot-Wheel. So Fortune/Wheel at 11 fits two existing decks, including the one probably originally closest in time and place to the Rosenwald original design, while at 14 it fits none, nowhere close. That is a fairly good argument, I think, but not conclusive.
I see only one deck, that has 11 Wheel (Colonna, late), the Rosenwald has no 11, it's only on Dummett's list with a "?" cause of Dummett's conclusions.

If Rosenwald is from 1465, then the Colonna fragment (from Rome, not Florence) is a little bit far off to be of relevance.
Your suggestion has going for it the arrangement on the sheet. But it is not a "mistake", as you put it, not to follow the ordinal order on the sheet. The Cary Sheet (no numbers) only partially follows an order The BAR/Rothschild sheets (no numbers), which appears to follow ancient designs, only partially follow an order. There is no particular reason why the sequence has to correspond to the arrangement on the page.
Yes, this behavior isn't naturally the normal case. But it says, that engraver of the original Rosenwald was a careful man, cause if the producer found it meaningful to sell the cards in sequence (as it is quite common nowadays), the cards are much easier to sort. If you make the woodblock otherwise in a chaotic manner, you have always more work to do.
In this case, the Rosenwald, it does seem that the cutter tried to make the arrangement correspond to the numbers. But he got something wrong (besides the two VIIIs): either the number on the Gobbio is wrong, or he put Fortune in the wrong place. Comparison with the other type A orders suggests the latter alternative.
We must differ between the designer of the original Rosenwald (likely without numbers) and the exotic chaos of the Rosenwald sheet and the final state, when the printed sheet of Leinfelden had (possibly) correct numbers. I think, all 3 have different dates, from we may assume c. 1501 Perugia for the Leinfelden and the other two dates we don't know, as a hypothesis c. 1465 for the oldest without numbers.
One argument for the other alternative might be if it could be established that there was the practice of giving the designs to one person and the numbers to another. Then putting the cards in order on the page would facilitate putting the numbers on correctly. Again, either the engraver of the designs did it fully in accord with that procedure, or he made a mistake. Given that we know the numberer made at least one mistake, we might conclude that he was the less experienced or competent of the two, thus the one to be given the relatively simple job of numbering. If so, the more competent would have been given the designs, and presumably thereby less likely to make a mistake.
There is more than one number error in the Rosenwald, and it seems plausible to think of an engraver, who just attempted to change something.
This argument has many "ifs". It might equally be said that because putting the numbers on is simpler, it would have been given to the master, as less likely to make a mistake of this kind, sometimes difficult to correct. Also, while he is numbering, he can review whether the designs are executed properly. If the designs are in the wrong order on the page, it doesn't matter, because the numbers can correct such a mistake. But even so, the master did make a mistake too, a real one (the two VIIIs). Why not? He has many cutters to supervise. And in this case it is easy to correct; you just add another I. The argument from a division of labor goes nowhere.
If the numbers were just written at a corrupted sheet (anyway damaged cause of the card Fortune), which the engraver noted to observe possible future working problems, then we have no problem. It's quite common for a printer to make notes on printed paper during his work, for corrections etc.. He makes a test printing, and notes the detected errors on this test paper. Naturally efore he starts to produce 100s or 1000s from the wrong woodcut.
I don't suppose you can tell what the number is on the Fortitude card of the Leinfelden, the card with the mistaken number VIII on the Washington sheet. It wouldn't prove anything one way or another, but it would be of interest.
I detected 5 numbers, all are shown already. I doubt, that I find more.

******************

I start to wonder, if we should also consider the work on the Sola Busca Tarocchi in this question, as this might have had Florentine influences.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1041&hilit=sola+busca+riddle
And again, it's very curious ...

I wrote at AT this thread, to takes it shorter ...
http://tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=253494

According my own analyses (as far I remember) there were 9 trump cards, which couldn't be associated to trumps in the usual Minchiate (as far these were also Tarot trumps).

I try to focus my complicated wanderings in this thread. Somehow I arrived from ...

Image


... to this one, ...

Image


... and those trumps, which belonged to the blue background fields belonged with one exception (Chariot) all to the 9, which I had identified as those, which didn't associate a normal Tarot trump.

So I recognized that the motif "Chariot" seems to have had a special importance. The Sola-Busca artist had arranged it so.
In Minchiate the Chariot has the number 10, as we know.

Well, I detected the Lucca Tarocchi in it. The Lucca Tarocchi threw 9 cards away, and kept 13, and these were the Minchiate trumps No. 9 - 20 (starting with 9 = wheel) and the Fool.

One riddle had remained, and this was, that the wheel wasn't detected in the cards of Sola-Busca. Also one card, which was recognizable as Magician (Sola Busca = Panfilio), but which wasn't used in the Lucca.

I wrote in the thread:
The one missing card from the Lucca Tarocchi is the "Wheel". There is no wheel at all the Sola-Busca cards. If I would assume, that 1 Panfilio presents the wheel, then all difficulties are gone. Panfilio has the greatest rounded shield of all the warriors, not enough to conclude the wheel, but ...

Panfilio in the Sola-Busca was the lowest trump.
In the Lucca Tarocchi the card "9 Wheel" was the lowest trump.
Well, no doubt, Panfilio is the Wheel.

I guess, something is solved now.


Well, the Lucca Tarocchi ...

It i's a feature of the Rosenwald discussion, that the Wheel creates problems. It was similar in the Sola Busca. It's also a feature of the Rosenwald, that one has to suspect a 69-cards-game with missing "4 tens", missing "4 queens" and missing "Fool" against the normal Tarot. It's a feature of the Lucca Tarocchi, that there are indeed 69 trumps, and that the trumps 1-8 of Minchiate are missing and also the Papessa, which isn't a Minchiate trump, but in Tarot (also measured against the complete 78-cards-version of Tarot). Both cards - Fortune and Papessa - look as the keys in the possible changes of the Rosenwald

It's a feature of the 5x14-theory, that possibly some early Trionfi decks had only 70 cards, possibly even the dominant version of the game for some time. 70 and 69 are close to each other.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Pratesi June 2016, "The Third Rosenwald Sheet"

#14
I once ...

... wrote:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=420&hilit=michelangelo#p5225
http://www.tarotpedia.com/wiki/Germini_Poem:_Beginning

.. (I think, it was Marco, who translated it ?), than we have there the attempt to merge the 40 Minchiate trumps into a 4x10-scheme. This is done by mockery, declaring the 4 virtues XVI-XVIIII (Hope, Prudentia, Faith and Caritas) to ruffians, which preside about 9 whores.

XVIIII reigns about trumps 40-32
XVIII reigns about trumps 31-22
XVII reigns about trumps 10-15 and 20-22
XVI reigns about trumps 1-9

This is done in such a cruel way (disregarding a probable original structure), that one hardly can take it as the original, but has to take it as a second mockery ... or are there other opinions?
... addressing the 1553 work about Germini-Minchiate: "I Germini sopra quaranta meretrice della città di Fiorenza".

Maybe it's interesting for this discussion.

**********

Steven today ...
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1102&start=60#p17062
... addressed the following row of 20 trumps in a poem of Giulio Cesare Croce.
(There are only 20, no pope or papessa, or four papi - just the emperor and empress)

Angelo
Mondo
Sole
Luna
Stella
Saetta
Diavolo
Morte
Traditore
Vechio
Ruota
Carro
Fortezza
Giustitia
Temperanza
Amore
Imperatore
Imperatrice
Bagattino
Matto
Croce was also topic to Andrea ...
http://www.letarot.it/page.aspx?id=224

I transferred the Croce row to ...
20-40 Angelo
19-39 Mondo
18-38 Sole
17-37 Luna
16-36 Stella
15 Saetta
14 Diavolo
13 Morte
12 Traditore
11 Vechio
10 Ruota
9 Carro
8 Fortezza
7 Giustitia

6 Temperanza
5 Amore
4 Imperatore
3 Imperatrice
2 Bagattino
1 Matto


Somehow a relative to Minchiate with twists in Ruoto/Carro and Fortezza/Giustitia and some upset in 1-4. Well, it's from Bologna.
Possibly this is also a sort of attachment to our theme here.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Pratesi June 2016, "The Third Rosenwald Sheet"

#15
About the Rosenwald cards

John McLeod / Michael Dummett in their book to Tarot rules in volume I, p. 323/324, in the chapter to Minchiate made the following statements:

Image


Image


This is a curious passage. It confirms the theory about the Rosenwald Tarocchi, as it was born in December 2011.

Then the idea arrived, that the hypothetical 4 original Rosenwald woodblocks (only 3 sheets are known) were made according the interest to produce either decks with 48 cards (standard decks without 4 10's and 4 Queens) or decks with 72 (or 69) cards (Trionfi decks without 4 10s, 4 Queens and without Fool) and decks with 96 cards (Minchiate without Fool), and all with the same woodcut blocks. This was considered by us as an optimized model to produce cards as cheap as possible.

The passage about the Assissi confirms at least a part of this idea.

... :-) ... The old mail box record reports, that in the working process on the article (late 2011) the info was posted to Franco, but Franco didn't reply on it, and it was forgotten on both sides. It returned to the surface again in August 2015 and Franco replied "As usual, Dummett is an excellent author. I regret that at the time in which this short article was published I was studying only the history of go and this information escaped my attention. (I have certainly already read it however!) It is, in particular, a useful support for Naibi packs of 48 cards (and Minchiate 96)."
And then it was forgotten again ... :-)

So, here it is ... again. And it has some importance.

The reference goes to a text, which we don't have. "Playing Card World Nr. 79", which is not identical to the Journal "The Playing Card". According http://www.i-p-c-s.org/publications.html it contains "Fournier Museum d'Alava; 1993 & 1994 Worshipful packs; Cards found in Assisi; Kaartenmakers in Wallonië (review)
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Pratesi June 2016, "The Third Rosenwald Sheet"

#16
MikeH found it difficult to understand.

My own theory about it is, that the Rosenwald was an optimized 96-card deck on 4 wood blocks, from which 2 were used for 48 cards, 3 for a normal Trionfi deck solution (either 69 or 72 cards) and 4 for the 96-cards-Minchiate. I suggest, that the 96-card deck deck hadn't a card "0", and also not the 72/69 deck.

The Assissi deck confirms to a high degree, that the hypothetical 48-cards-deck existed.

The later Strambotti poem had also 21 trump cards, but the missing "0" seems to have replaced the Papessa, so that Bagatello/Fool possibly had position 1 and 2 or 0 and 1.

Franco's ideas about it has possibly slight differences. I see some relation of this (hypothetical) 72/69-card-deck to the later Lucca Tarocchi, which also had 69 cards, but in another composition. And also some relation to the 70-cards of the the 5x14-theory, and 72 cards (5x14+2 special cards) of the Master PW-deck.
The reason for this scheme might be, that 72 is just a pleasant number in the production of playing cards, 3x24, 4x18, 6x12, 8x9 for different woodblock sizes.

One has to see the sheets ...

****************

Sheets necessary for the 48 cards deck :

Image


Image


Queen's and 10s are missing

*****************

Additional sheet for decks with Trionfi cards (69/72 cards)

Image


It contains 3 Queens, which possibly were not used in the hypothetical 69 cards deck.

*****************

(Hypothetical) additional sheet for cards necessary to form a 96-cards-Minchiate :

1 Queen
4 10s
19 Minchiate trumps (possibly later No. 16 and No. 18-35; 3 theological virtues, 4 elements, 12 zodiac signs; no Prudentia)
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Pratesi June 2016, "The Third Rosenwald Sheet"

#17
If the Assisi deck is the same as the Rosenwald in its suit cards, does that mean it has the centaurs and female pages? If so, a main argument for considering the Rosenwald a minchiate would seem not to be valid, since tarocchi is just an ordinary deck with 26 (the highest number I have seen proposed) or fewer triumphal cards added. Perhaps we will have to speak of an "Umbrian standard deck", given that Assisi is not far from Perugia.

Re: Pratesi June 2016, "The Third Rosenwald Sheet"

#18
mikeh wrote:If the Assisi deck is the same as the Rosenwald in its suit cards, does that mean it has the centaurs and female pages? If so, a main argument for considering the Rosenwald a minchiate would seem not to be valid, since tarocchi is just an ordinary deck with 26 (the highest number I have seen proposed) or fewer triumphal cards added. Perhaps we will have to speak of an "Umbrian standard deck", given that Assisi is not far from Perugia.
In Assissi was a Museum, which had the cards, which doesn't mean, that the cards came from there.
We don't have early cards identified as from Florence, which I know. I don't know, what the oldest Florentine playing cards are.

Toscana "standard", oldest c. 1850
http://a.trionfi.eu/WWPCM/decks05/d02284/d02284.htm

with king, queens and jacks, all male

Image


Florence III
http://a.trionfi.eu/WWPCM/decks04/d03434/d03434.htm

Image
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Pratesi June 2016, "The Third Rosenwald Sheet"

#19
Well, yes, i said "perhaps". My point is that we have no idea. It does no good to show me male jacks from 1850, if in Assisi we have a deck that is said to look very much like the Rosenwald; if so, it will have female pages And if the deck is also like the other one Dummett describes, with 12 cards per suit, then there will be four centaur knights and no queens. If so, we are talking about a standard deck very different from what we know about, but one to which 21 trumps and 3 queens could easily be added on one sheet, along with a queen, a fool, and four 10s repeated 4 times on a separate sheet (as in Dummett's hypothesis of a sheet with all 10s).

Either that or one of the sheets will have four queens and no knights, and so molds of a different composition than the two Rosenwalds with suits on them. A standard triumph deck (with tens, knights, and a separate fool on a separate sheet) could still be made from those, given another mold with repeating motifs.

If we actually knew whether the Assisi deck had a full complement of queens and knights, what the knights looked like, and what the pages looked like (male or female), it might help. Simply knowing that there are no 10s doesn't help that much, because there is too much else to account for. If the possibility of making both a minchiate or a trionfi deck is a possible outcome, it still might well be only the trionfi that was actually made, and no molds for zodiac signs, etc.

Re: Pratesi June 2016, "The Third Rosenwald Sheet"

#20
I don't know more than the book passage expressed. And that, was Dummett and McLeod seem to have understood from their source, the Assissi deck was more or less (only small technical differences indicating another woodblock, but the same deck type) the two additional sheets, as they're known for the Rosenwald. Without 10s.

It would be interesting to know, if this deck had colors.

Giuliano Crippa is mentioned in this IPCS article ...
http://i-p-c-s.org/convention2012.html
... then (2012) likely still a member.

http://www.i-p-c-s.org/reps.html
He has an email and is the Italian representative of IPCS.

Also here ...
Oriental Tarot of 1846
https://rinascimentoitalianartenglish.w ... arot-1845/
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

cron