EUGIM wrote:Excuse me Robert...
But I must be honest here.
Do you remember when you on a sarcastic way you "push" JMD about the topic about Tarot de Marseille 1/2/3/4/5/ ad eternum ?

-So now you found that is Tarot de Marseille ...

-Please Robert. / You doing classifications ?

LOL, I do them all the time, especially concerning Tarot de Marseille I and Tarot de Marseille II. I don't remember exactly what the discussion was about.... but I was half joking with Jean-Michel at the time, and I felt the need to also express that the whole "Tarot de Marseille I/Tarot de Marseille II classification system" was not completely agreed to by tarot historians.

I DO however feel that there are generally clear differences between I and II (crosier/cross on the pope for instance), noticeable on almost every card.

When discussing the Chosson, this gets at the very heart of the issue. IF the dating is in the 1600s, then it is "The Earliest Surviving Tarot de Marseille II". If it is later, then that honor goes to the Madenié.

Dear all,

Robert talk now about Pierre Madenié 1709 and for me it is clear that:

This deck is much nicer that either Conver, Chosson and Bourlion. A question of taste of course.
He is full of very interesting details and is a leaving memory of many changes that occured at this period.
Is a complete deck as his main "competitors ?" Chosson and Conver (Made in Marseille).
Is from another part of France (Dijon) much close to Swiss.

I am very sorry of that that but aesthetic rules lead me to declares that Tarots made in Marseille (ALL of them), my town are of a second category regarding art design and symbols when we compares to such jewel.

I am not scientific by saying this but amatore is amatore and it's my freedom.

Anyway, I can't imagine a card maker who do not search and collect as much as possible exemplars of his colleagues/competitors production.
Camoin house had big collection of other producters for documentation/information/inspiration.
same for Schaffhouse /Swiss card maker.

In 2008 all Tarot deck producers act equally if they want to produce and historical deck: Hadar, Camoin/Tourrasse, Rhodes/Sanchez and others...
But not all of them search ALL decks and it is a pity because this is the only way to rebuild up the Tarot "puzzle".

We are lucky because best is in front of us when money is not our main aim.

Another attempt.. Failed... You have to be patient. Sorry.
Yves

Many thanks Yves !
-I got it ...

Okay Robert I will follow the "Sacred Holy" classification...

-XVI card:
1-Noblet and Dodal (Tarot de Marseille 1 ) / Flames coming out of the tower toward the Sun
2-Conver and Chosson (Tarot de Marseille 2 ) / Flames coming from the Sun toward the tower
3-So why must I suppose that Chosson is earlier than 1760 ?

-I m not a guy that give up easy....
-I purpose a closest examination to iconography that what I was asking for from the very beginning of the thread.
-Just because we haven t a certain true date go ahead with the "Sacred Holy" classification (Tarot de Marseille 1 -Tarot de Marseille 2 )
And please forget any historical fact just see the cards friends here ...
I will only talk about the LE MAT and the others 21 / I leave for Robert if he want it to analyse the others 56.

1-VI- Cupid is not blindfolded // Tarot de Marseille 2
XVI card: Flames coming form the Sun toward the Tower. // Tarot de Marseille 2
2-XVIII card: A Crescent Moon. // Tarot de Marseille 2

Au revoir...

I agree completely with you what you are saying Eugim. The Chosson IS a Tarot de Marseille II, for exactly the reasons you are stating! The cupid on the Lovers, the canopy on the Chariot, the face on the Moon.. all Tarot de Marseille II. That's the point.

Is it the oldest existing Tarot de Marseille II? Or is the Madenié from 1709 the oldest existing Tarot de Marseille II? IF the Chosson is from 1672, then the Chosson is the oldest existing Tarot de Marseille II. If it is from after 1709, then the Madenié is the oldest existing Tarot de Marseille II.

You don't need to convince anyone that the Chosson is a Tarot de Marseille II. It clearly is from the details you have presented, and many, many more.

So ...
Who ?
When ?
Where ?

--1672 ? OR 1762 ? OR 1862 ?

Okay Robert It s a clear Tarot de Marseille 1 case this.

1-That implies only a pattern or an admision also of a date barely near before or after to Conver so 1760 ?
2-We never found yet a Tarot de Marseille 1 pattern closer To Conver date or after.

EUGIM wrote:Okay Robert It s a clear Tarot de Marseille 1 case this.

1-That implies only a pattern or an admision also of a date barely near before or after to Conver so 1760 ?
2-We never found yet a Tarot de Marseille 1 pattern closer To Conver date or after.

Hi Eugim,

Again, that's kind of the whole point of the thread. Really though, we're talking about a small amount of time. If the Chosson is 1672, then it is 37 years before the next sample in 1709. That's not long, especially when we consider that Noblet is 50 years before the Dodal, for instance. I don't see how it matters much one way or the other, the only thing to really know is "which Tarot de Marseille II is oldest"?

There are at least some Tarot de Marseille I after Conver, some going all the way into the 1800s like the Guiseppe Drago.

What we do know:
Earliest existing Tarot de Marseille I is Noblet. 1650
Earliest existing Tarot de Marseille II is either Chosson (if 1672), or Madenié, 1709.

Tarot de Marseille I has evidence of the pattern in the Cary Sheet (around 1500) and the Sforza Castle World card (uncertain... 1500-1750).

Tarot de Marseille 2 Cups card from Sforza Castle is earliest dated card similar to the Tarot de Marseille, but might be from a regular deck of cards. 1499.

I suggest the way to get a better idea of the "sequence" the Tarot de Marseille II is to compare the iconography between the Chosson, the Madenié, and the Conver. We have access to the Chosson and the Conver to see the details. Does anyone have access to the Pierre Madenié that could be used to compare details?