Thanks OnePotato, superb!

With letters of the same proportions, SELLON fits perfectly.

Ross

Wow! What incredible work, OnePotato - Shows why your deck has that incredible touch!

Thanks again for those details, Ross and Michael - though I tend to prefer the 1672 date myself, I must admit that it was without the persuasive evidence presented by Ross, yet can see how a previous claim for the interchanged '6' and '7' could easily have been made (as, if I recall, first suggested by DePaulis). The meticulous image analysis and checking for dates of relevant cardmakers and carvers brings the whole thing to life... if only D'Allemagne was more readily available in printed form.

With regards to Michael's comment that

it seems that the Noblet pattern (at least -- perhaps also the Chosson/Conver pattern) is probably a very close copy of the Milanese standard pattern

it does indeed... more so for the Noblet.

What remains somewhat difficult to account are the very distinctions between the Noblet, the Payen-Dodal, and Chosson-Madenie-Conver as all 'very close copies' of a standard Milanese pattern - given the precise differences found within each of these groups of decks.

It is these differences - and of course the differences are to a large extent less than the overall similarities - that suggests not just a likely common ancestry, but also variations and movement from such ancestry into the Noblet and from there to the Payen, and also from what may be more 'Noblet-like' towards the Chosson-Conver. Ie, a likely variation from a Milanese (let's call it Milanese Sforza Castle pattern [MSC]) to a Noblet-like proto-Tarot de Marseille to Tarot de Marseille-I and thence Tarot de Marseille-II.

If I read Michael correctly, his suggestion is for the MSC to possibly have two different variants, each independent of one the other, something like:



Of course, I have here shown a sea-route to Marseille that is perhaps rather unwarranted - and we also know that there is a connection between Marseille, Avignon, and Lyon with Payen, this latter moving from Marseille to Avignon, and (at least I surmise) Dodal in Lyon using the Payen workshop - so basically another layer of 'complexity' in terms of the two Tarot de Marseille forms and their respective locations... without bringing in the Besançon, Schaffhouse, and other patterns that appear to have retained some early details omitted from, it seems, both TdMs.

But getting back to the Chosson... and perhaps the dating is more definite given the above posts than is still generally considered.

What is still fascinating and, as far as I can see, open, are the lines of connections and descent.

Hmmmm.

I personally think the Dodal is the closest relative to the earlier pattern, as witnessed in the SC World card. The Noblet and Chosson both strike me as redrawings of that pattern.

Note that the Sun card has the predefined number area, denoting, IMHO, a later date than the World card.

Great you picked up on this, Le Pendu!

I posted the Sun instead of the World for a variety of reasons that I have not as yet followed through.

One of these is that its details are all the poorer than is apparent in the World SC card, showing, in my view, that it is too but a descendent of some earlier model, and perhaps more on a par with the Noblet than with the precursor deck depicted by the SC World.

Still, interesting (highly so) card, and much food for thought given the wonderful possibilities opened in this thread.

How numbers look....in Europe I saw (a few times) the number "4" represented as a little "o"--half an 8, you see.

As an American in Europe, I wondered at all those "7"s and upside-down "v"s that turned out to be "1"s, and my "1"s all were mistaken for "I"s.

So there might possibly be something else operating, in terms of conventions for the appearance of numerals.

Hello everybody here...
I am more close in mind with Ross Caldwell.IMHO here we have one that engraved the deck an another who bought it.
I ve took the 2 of deniers and first transferred to black & white and then transferred on a negative image to see more clear.
The lettters are different between François and Chosson.
Also if one see IMHO the C of Francois it seems very closely drawn as the supposed C of the 1672 we are talking about here.
With regard to One Potato work I think he unintentionally of course altered the graphs of the number for fit his thesis.
I closely saw all the letter C exist on VII/VIII/XI and XIIII cards and I saw them closely to the C letter of Chosson,so not the other C of Francois.That reinforced Ross thesis I think.
I e mailed to Rom days ago and he promise to me Le Pendu he will Log in here,and he told to me he believe the deck is medieval.
I not replay to him yet but I think that "The lost number is an 8 ) // So a 1872. deck.
The XII card is also interesting,because the pattern IIX as found at Chosson is also at Vieville,Dodal and Jean Pierre Payen (So "cross" the uncrossing I feel ).
Curiously N. Bodet and Van der Borre with the same "Blood" or line of Vieville has the XII at he top (So not Vieville) but I think going more "far meaning" than him,making "marry" number position and image figure arrangement,as I see it friends.
By the way I regret Mr. One Potato that I can t put my work here,so you can explain to my friends /So, how to do it ?

PS / I also did engrave work.Ross is right.Engrave work don t look never (Aside Durero a really Master) on details but here we have to much work.just seeking on " Art line " signals.
For example...
Just see the angel at VI card./ Isn t him very Rubens ? / Even isn t Conver is ? -
That s drives me to the Art time when ours dears decks had done. // Nobllet or Vieville to Conver ( 1650-1760 )
If you think isn t too much I think friends... (Just no more than 100 hundred years/so nothing talking about art history...)
Baroque art was placed from 1600 to 1750 .../ So don t we think that all I mean all of those decks are in these movement ?
So why they don t show that ? / Do you want go far ? / The engrave history didn t show a correspondence.

Eugim

I do think that over the past 20 or so years, various considerations have had to be legitimately made as to what that 'backwards' "c" may have been, and whether the date was correct on various interpretations. That there were various 'Chosson-like' (ie, Tarot de Marseille-II) decks made in the 19th century is of course also clear...

....but (he says not too sure how he'll write next), what seems to me is that as different possibilities have been considered, greater and finer details have been uncovered and made more broadly known: names of carvers and card-makers from the periods and places; analysis of imagery as shown in this very thread; and plausibility of earlier date.

I suppose where I personally have an hesitation (though I still favour the earliest date of 1672) is that, as Tarot de Marseille-II, it seems to antedate the other early models significantly, and in a manner that I personally would not have expected. It is still possible that the 'c' was carved incorrectly, and thus removed. By then why not have the repaired date shown, if 'Chosson' is similarly added?

mjhurst wrote:Hi, Ross,

An outstanding bit of detective work. Congratulations.

Back in February (about a week before you posted your findings and analysis to Aeclectic), Robert asked where I stood on the question of dating the Chosson deck. "Firmly on the side of whoever tells the best story", was my evasive reply.

Evasive indeed.

mjhurst wrote:At the time, I suggested that the best story seemed to be backing the later dating. Now I'm switching sides -- always the pushover for better evidence and/or argument.

Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:There is a problem stylistically though. This Tarot de Marseille is "TdMII" by Depaulis' taxonomy...
So if this tarot was engraved in Marseille in 1672, then it is a very early example of the Tarot de Marseille II type.

mjhurst wrote:I'm not sure if that's a stylistic problem with the evidence or a problem of mistaken preconceptions with the conventional wisdom. The idea that Tarot de Marseille underwent some dramatic evolution over a period of two centuries, (with the supposed Tarot de Marseille I to Tarot de Marseille II mutation being a late and minor example of that evolutionary process), is just a theory, and is based on extremely fragmentary evidence. The facts appear to be that at some unknown time in the 15th century, some unknown standard pattern(s) from Milan made its way into France and began being produced there. At some point, again unknown, the names and borders were added. That's pretty vague, and beyond that, we're swimming in really deep conjecture.

The popular line of speculation seems to be that what traveled to France was very different than Tarot de Marseille. It was a hypothetical deck of some unknown design. Subsequently, many changes were wrought, leading eventually to Tarot de Marseille, and subsequent to the development the different branches of Tarot de Marseille. But there seems to be no necessity for introducing such a hypothetical deck, and several good reasons (in addition to parsimony) for concluding that the Milanese standard pattern of the 15th century was probably much like Tarot de Marseille.

What popular line of speculation? If you're referring to me, then I think I've been misunderstood. I've never intended to suggest that drastic changes happened to some unknown design. My point is that details on the cards seem to have been lost or changed. I think pieces of thrones were lost, clothing got confused, floor patterns changed... but that basically all the Tarot de Marseille decks are pretty consistent in the general content. I do think the Cary Sheet is a big question. You think it's just a one off luxury deck. Perhaps. I don't know, and I think it worth exploring. I think it's interesting to compare the differences in the decks, and try to discover what they might suggest for WHY they were changed. Does it matter if the Pope holds a triple cross or a crosier? Not in the big picture scheme of the "meaning" of the card, but I think it's interesting to ponder why they are shown with a Crosier on TdMI and Triple Cross on TdMII. Could it give us a clue about the decks? Maybe.

mjhurst wrote:Given your dating here, it seems that Noblet (Tarot de Marseille I) and Chosson (Tarot de Marseille II) decks are both attested from about the same time. One pattern was standard in Paris, the other in Marseilles.

We don't know that. We know that ONE example of the Tarot de Marseille I shows up in Paris at the time. We know that MAYBE a Tarot de Marseille II from Marseille shows up around a similar time. I don't know that either was standard, or should be connected to a region. The Payen family is originally from Marseille, and their decks are Tarot de Marseille I. The Tarot de Marseille I "style" shows up in the Belgian, and the Besancon, and in the Marseille, as well as the Cary Sheet. Without dating the Chosson to 1672, then the first sample of Tarot de Marseille II is from 1709.

Now, I'm fine with 1672. I don't know when the two styles split, in fact, I find that one of the biggest puzzles. These decks are so inter-related. I do think the Chosson is older than the Conver, his details are clearer. It was obviously a very popular pattern, and well copied.

mjhurst wrote:However, the interesting question is not the dating of the specific decks but the dating of the patterns which they exemplify. There are so few surviving Milanese or French standard pattern decks prior to the 1700s that we have to make some inferences.

Good direct evidence simply doesn't exist, but we know that Tarot was played in Milan in the 1440s, and that Tarot went to France at that time or not long after. Marcello's package included a Tarot deck, and also a special deck with instructions. Despite calling it a new game(?), the Tarot deck required no description and no instructions, so it appears that Tarot was quite widely known as early as 1449. (I hate recounting this stuff to you because you know so much more of it, and much better than I do.) In 1450 the Visconti letter indicates that decks were a commodity available in different grades, and one of the earliest Ferrarese references indicates that relatively cheap Tarot decks were being sold by a Bolognese merchant. And so on...

So, what kind of deck was used in Milan -- and France -- in the 1400s? Was it something quite unknown to us, or was it was essentially a Tarot de Marseille deck, albeit without the nifty border and names? We have some pretty good evidence for the latter from the surviving Sforza Castle Sun and World cards. The Milanese deck from which they came was roughly contemporaneous with the Parisian Noblet, but from a Milanese tradition.

I'm not so sure about that. First, they are from different decks. The Sun has the Number inside a reserved area, the World has the number added to the border. The World strikes me as an example of an older deck. The Sun may indeed be contemporaneous with the Noblet. An earlier researcher stated that (I'll have to find the reference) says that the cards were earlier, and I agree. At least, I think the Sforza Castle World card is an example of the type of deck that ALL of our existing Tarot de Marseille cards are based on.

Here, we might agree Michael. If you want to call that the "Tarot of Milan", I'm fine with that. I don't even care really if the card is from the 1500s, 1600s, or 1700s, what matters is that it is an example of what I suspect our "Marseille" tarots are based on.

mjhurst wrote:The two lines of descent appear to have been separated for a long time, and yet the iconography is virtually identical -- a great example of the well-known conservatism of card makers and their patrons. The only reasonable explanation seems to be that Noblet and the Sforza Castle decks had a common ancestor in the 15th-century Milanese standard pattern, which is also suggested by the 1499 Two of Coins and by the stylish variant deck known as the Cary Sheet.

But it doesn't really indicate when they split. There is no reason to suspect at this point that he Tarot de Marseille II is any older than 1709, or perhaps 1672. There is reason to suspect the the Tarot de Marseille I is, (Cary Sheet, Belgian, Besançon, and also later Italian decks like the Drago).

Now, I'm fine with the two designs splitting at any point. It might have been the 1400s, 1500s, 1600s, or 1700s. I just don't think we have enough evidence to know at this point when it was, unless I'm missing something (hey, it happens!). It is, I think, entirely possible that the Tarot de Marseille I (with the exception of the numbers and titles) was originally from Italy (Milan if you like.. whatever)... entered France.. titles and numbers were added... this became the Tarot de Marseille I, then at some point the Tarot de Marseille II was created, grew more popular, and replaced the Tarot de Marseille I (but not before the design of the Tarot de Marseille I was adapted into the Belgian and Besancon and whatever the Cary Sheet is).

mjhurst wrote:To me, it seems that the Noblet pattern (at least -- perhaps also the Chosson/Conver pattern) is probably a very close copy of the Milanese standard pattern, despite being first attested two centuries later in France. Except for the names and frames, it might be virtually identical. So I'm not sure how much evolution we need to postulate, or where/when it should be assumed to have taken place.

Best regards,
Michael

Again, I think you and I basically agree on this. I'm just not as certain as you are. And I need to say, I'm also not as certain about the whole "Tarot de Marseille I and II" thing as I sound. I've even questioned to myself if the "Tarot de Marseille I' is really nothing more than an adaptation of the Tarot de Marseille II as it moved into the North and became the Besancon or Belgian. I just don't think we have enough of these early decks to really know. The reason I'm so obsessed with comparing the details is because I believe it helps to sort this question out, at least a bit. I can see relationships and interdependencies that indicate inheritance.

I'd have to go look again, but thanks to Rom's site I was FINALLY able to really look at the Chosson up close and compare it to the Conver. To me, there is little doubt that the Conver is based on the Chosson (or something similar). There are details in the Chosson "lost" in the Conver. It's a clarity of line. I can find examples if you wish, but generally speaking, I think you get my gist.

Now, if we can just get some nice samples of the François Heri deck (the Besançon that matches the Noblet, not the Tarot de Marseille that matches the Conver), then that might offer us more clues.

Of course, another thing to consider here is how often the "Tarot de Marseille I and II" were intermixed. The whole thing reminds me of "J" and "E" in the Pentateuch! (of course, we know that J is older... right... ????)