## Rosenwald sheet

### Rosenwald sheet

#1
Hi friends,

a) somebody have the two sheets with the normal cards (not the sheet with the triumphs)?

b) Do you think the three sheets are from the some deck?
When a man has a theory // Can’t keep his mind on nothing else (By Ross)

### Re: Rosenwald sheet

#2
Please, I need some mathematical-brain ( )

what is the possibility in the two sheets with triumphs not exist any triumphs characteristic of minchiate (as the signs of the zodiac)?????????
When a man has a theory // Can’t keep his mind on nothing else (By Ross)

### Re: Rosenwald sheet

#3
Hello,

sorry to bump this thread but I can't seem to find where this has been discussed.

Regarding http://trionfi.com/rosenwald-tarocchi-sheet
I suppose you're not speaking about those sheets since the three sheets are obviously not from the same deck and it seems highly probable that they are not from the same time nor designed for the same game.

1 : what would be the material evidences (if any) that would justify the idea that the numbers would have been added on the printed sheet as affirmed by "a comment by Lothar Teikemeier(personal communication, November 2011)" ?
2 : has it been discussed elsewhere why the numbers are reversed ? could it be that this sheet was a kind of pattern/blueprint to be glued on a woodblock to carve it ?
3 : regarding Pinder's result, since I didn't read his paper I see lots of question marks on his numbers, so is it possible that the mismatching numbers come from the damages on the sheet ? for instance : 11/0(?) (where XV can be misinterpreted, remove rightmost (leftmost as the number are reverted) part of the V : X\ when part of the number is missing), 2/3 (where X expected, remove lower part : \ / ), 10 (where XIIII expected, remove four I : X) - is that plausible and if so are Pinder's observations usable evidences at all in the context of the paper ?
4 : (the more important point) we can see from later (so possibly more subject to an hypothetical form of standardization) but actual evidences (sorry for linking this website) that a) not all molds were the same size b) some cards were duplicated on the molds, so what positive arguments would justify the proposition "more plausible appears, however, to envisage a fourth sheet with the same 3x8 rows" which doesn't appear more (nor less) plausible at all ? For instance it is as much plausible to imagine a "half" mold (3x4 instead of 3x8) with the six missing cards doubled (78-3*24) - or even a full 3x8 mold with four copies of each card - which would be production wise a simple and efficient way to produce similar number of cards at each batch (by printing once the doubled [or quadrupled] mold for each batch of two [or four] decks). This sounds simpler and more consistent with the card production.

Bertrand

### Re: Rosenwald sheet

#4
Bertrand wrote:Hello,

sorry to bump this thread but I can't seem to find where this has been discussed.

Regarding http://trionfi.com/rosenwald-tarocchi-sheet
I suppose you're not speaking about those sheets since the three sheets are obviously not from the same deck and it seems highly probable that they are not from the same time nor designed for the same game.

1 : what would be the material evidences (if any) that would justify the idea that the numbers would have been added on the printed sheet as affirmed by "a comment by Lothar Teikemeier(personal communication, November 2011)" ?
2 : has it been discussed elsewhere why the numbers are reversed ? could it be that this sheet was a kind of pattern/blueprint to be glued on a woodblock to carve it ?
3 : regarding Pinder's result, since I didn't read his paper I see lots of question marks on his numbers, so is it possible that the mismatching numbers come from the damages on the sheet ? for instance : 11/0(?) (where XV can be misinterpreted, remove rightmost (leftmost as the number are reverted) part of the V : X\ when part of the number is missing), 2/3 (where X expected, remove lower part : \ / ), 10 (where XIIII expected, remove four I : X) - is that plausible and if so are Pinder's observations usable evidences at all in the context of the paper ?
4 : (the more important point) we can see from later (so possibly more subject to an hypothetical form of standardization) but actual evidences (sorry for linking this website) that a) not all molds were the same size b) some cards were duplicated on the molds, so what positive arguments would justify the proposition "more plausible appears, however, to envisage a fourth sheet with the same 3x8 rows" which doesn't appear more (nor less) plausible at all ? For instance it is as much plausible to imagine a "half" mold (3x4 instead of 3x8) with the six missing cards doubled (78-3*24) - or even a full 3x8 mold with four copies of each card - which would be production wise a simple and efficient way to produce similar number of cards at each batch (by printing once the doubled [or quadrupled] mold for each batch of two [or four] decks). This sounds simpler and more consistent with the card production.

Bertrand
hi Bertrand,

the article was written by Franco Pratesi. His idea, that there were 4 sheets, was internal discussed. I think, the idea was considered by all participants as speculative, but interesting. It was observed, that the 3 sheets "might be not from the deck" (as you observed) ... however, these sheets are nowadays all in the same hand. How they came into the same hand, is not clear. One possibility might be, that they all were found in the same bookbinding. A report to the finding might exist, but we don't know where (and we didn't search for it, as such things might become frustrating).

You (and we) observed the differences between the sheet: but the idea, that the sheets came from one and the printing shop is given by the situation.
So the question was considered, how this might have happened. The idea developed to the point, that there were (possibly) 4 sheets, and all formed a Minchiate. Also it was thought, that the deck rather would belong to a very cheap version, and this might stand for the idea of the designer, that this should have been an optimized version ... just in matters of the practice of the printers, not in matters of elegance.
4 wood cut blocks only for a complete Minchiate with 96 cards, 2 blocks of them usable for a normal deck with 48 cards and possibly also for a 3rd game version with 72 cards. And all 3 games printed with only 4 woodcut blocks.
An possible additional (practical) feature: No numbers on the cards ... as it was considered, that this might have been an export deck to other cities, it might have been valuable to have different numbers for different markets, so numbers at the woodcut block itself.

A consideration of the practice in such a small printing work shop: Two woodcut blocks of the four (normal 48 cards deck) would be more often used than the third sheet (used for 72 cards and 96 cards) and much more often used than the 4th sheet (used for 96 cards). The logical result would be, that woodcut block 1 and wouldcut block 2 would have better chances to be earlier unusable and would be replaced. The replacements sheets might be in detail recognizable as "of a different deck" - that, what you saw and we, too - but nonetheless they might have been in use together with the older Trump+Queens woodcut block for the very cheap market, where iconographic details had minor value than just practical and cost sparing production ideas.

The whole consideration is naturally "near to fiction" ...

One detail of the "real practice" of the printers was found by Franco in the article:
http://trionfi.com/cardmakers-woodblock-trial
Please read it with all its curious complications at the website. It's of 1463, Trionfi card panter Filippo di Marco owes 15 Florin to his helper Benedetto - that's a big sum. Benedetto has 7 woodcut blocks as security.
The corresponding judgment is not as simple as we could expect. The judge, Angelo Del Pace, examines the account books of the company and concludes that indeed Benedetto has to receive 15 gold florins from Filippo, who is given one year time for settling this account.
...
If the full year passes without payment, then the seven woodblocks remain as a property of Benedetto.
...
The second complication is that even if payment has occurred and soon after the woodblocks returned to their owner, the matter is not concluded: Filippo has to provide Benedetto with four woodblocks designed by himself, within eight further months.
...
Up to here, everything is clear enough. There are however some complications now. The first is that in the course of this whole year Benedetto must allow that Filippo enters his house and uses the seven woodblocks for his work, whenever he so wishes.
..
The second complication is that even if payment has occurred and soon after the woodblocks returned to their owner, the matter is not concluded: Filippo has to provide Benedetto with four woodblocks designed by himself, within eight further months.
Franco puzzles then:
This is a rather strange, hardly Solomonic, decision. If the seven woodblocks could balance the fifteen florins in case the money was not given, I don’t understand why the same woodblocks are worth a lot more than the 15 florins if they are given: the final judgment sounds as if Filippo had to confer to Benedetto the 15 florins AND the four woodblocks (which I hardly can imagine that he could set up with special care).
I would assume in this case, that the 7 woodcut blocks had a high value, and the 4 woodcut blocks a low value.
About Filippo di Marco before was known, that he made rather expensive Trionfi cards, at least partly much more expensive than those sold by the silk dealers.
http://trionfi.com/filippo-di-marco

The 4 woodcut blocks might have been enough to make a cheap Minchiate with 96 cards.
The 7 (hypothetically very careful made) woodcut blocks might have been enough to create wonderful expensive Trionfi decks.
The 4 (hpothetically cheap) woodcut blocks are just the rent on the money, that Filippo owed to Benedetto (15 Florins)
If Filippo had no chance to use the 7 woodcut blocks, he had no chance to earn the 15 Florins ... so Benedetto had to allow him to use them. On the other hand Benedetto seems to have had problems to use the 7 worthwhile woodcut blocks himself ... perhaps he couldn't fulfill all the tasks of such complicated productions, he wasn't the artist himself, he was just a helper with less experience

********

In our discussions the observation was made, that 96 card games might have been more "optimized to produce cheap decks" instead of 97. In this question it was observed, that "I Magician" at the Rosenwald sheet looks like a Fool, but has the table of the Magician.
In this context it was observed, that similar figures mixed from the iconography of the Fool and the Magician appeared in Baldini productions of the children of the Moon just around the time (1463-66), when we suspected the birth of a Minchiate (from which we don't know, how many cards it might have had).

... here mixed together in a photoshop version ...

taken from http://trionfi.com/franco-pratesi

From all this developed the idea, that the Rosenwald sheet indeed might lead back to this time - as a 96-card-construction, and as a forerunner to later Germini / Minchiate versions. It only has the value of a hypothesis, which easily might be dropped, when better ideas or contradictions appear.
Inside this consideration the idea appeared, that the original numerology had been

1 Magician/Fool
2 Popess
3 Empress
4 Emperor
5 Pope
6 Love
7 Temperance
8 Justice
9 Strength
10 Chariot
11 Hermit
12 Hanging Man
13 Fortune
14 Death

15 Devil
16 Tower
17 Star
18 Moon
19 Sun
20 World
21 Angel

... just following the row and its direction on the block, ignoring the possibly numbers. The major contradiction to other rows would have been "13 Fortune, 14 Death"

Sorry, I can't answer all your questions, especially about the strange numerology. Inside the above speculation numbers likely should be considered as "later added".

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests