Re: Noblet Emperor's new clothes

#21
Hello OnePotatoe and all,

You said:
"I am curious as to whether decks were assembled from cards of the same sheets? Or were piles of each card made after cutting, so that decks were made up of cards that came from various random sheets".

I thinks that second option is more efficient in term of timetable, speed, planification.
If decks are made up of cards from various random sheets (second option so,) this explain why on same deck you have either ghosted images or clean images.
If I remenber well you will find all the process explained and drawed by D'Allembert Encyclopedie prints demonstrated on Jean Claude Flornoy Web site: Very educative. I have them too and it explains well printing process and decks constitution by selection of cards.

As I previously wrote many decks have this ghost images (i.e Pierre Madenié deck) and this is very precious to clarify exact design of drawing lines.

Best,

Yves Le Marseillais
Personne n'est au dessus de l'obligation de dire la vérité.
Nobody is above obligation to tell truth.

Re: Noblet Emperor's new clothes

#22
I do think the main point is being missed - or of course, as can always be the case in threads, various discussions are simultaneously occurring.

There is no doubt that these 'shadowy' images appear on many decks - and have seen such myself, which is why when I first saw it on this card in the Noblet, nothing of significance came to mind.

It is when I was again looking at the WHOLE trump sequence in higher resolution that it jumped: here is ONE card with this aspect, precisely on the same card (often, the shadow can be from other or adjacent cards), located virtually over the same frame. It is this precision that lead me to open this thread as something that MAY be of significance, especially in light of this card's more usual mirror-image depiction.

Of course it may be 'accidental' and part and parcel of the frequent 'staining' that may occur. What remains nonetheless strange is its uniqueness in the set.

But I'll leave it at that, as I am not arguing that generally stained (or 'ghosted') cards are to be considered significant and need some kind of special explanation, even though I am lead to consider that in specifically this instance, a special question is raised, and either the 'usual' explanation can account for the stain, or a special and unique explanation may be warranted. Which it is, I am not convinced either way, as the 'normal' staining does not explain the very unique situation presented in this instance.
Image
&
Image
association.tarotstudies.org

MIRROR EFFECT ? OR SOMETHING ELSE

#23
Hello Jean Michel and all,

JM, if I understood well your thoughts, it is fact that only ONE card is ghosted that questions you.

And more specificly Empereur card also isn't it ?

As I said, to have only one card "ghosted" is not a problem for me because it is human behaviour to try to minimize productions costs by "hidding" an inferior quality card in a good quality deck. First explination. A capitalist one :lol:

Second explination: This specific card (Empereur) was deliberatly stained with this ghost lines as to obtain a "mirror effect" in the game. A more esoteric explination. 8-)

Here we face to what question all on this Forum: Is there any esoteric signification on this deck(s) or are we only talking about Cards game (and that's all and...Game is over :roll: )

Rationalism or Irrationalism here is the question Docteur Watson.

Yves (Gemini with Scorpio as rising sign. Hum Hum..)
Personne n'est au dessus de l'obligation de dire la vérité.
Nobody is above obligation to tell truth.

Re: Noblet Emperor's new clothes

#24
I am not presuming an esoteric explanation for the card - but rather a quite mundane one.

The problem I see lies if this card comes from the same sheet. It if is inserted from a different Noblet deck, then of course the other deck may have numerous cards that are similarly marked.

IF, however, it comes from the same single sheet (as a deck is usually expected to come), then I consider the observation one that raises the questions I have asked, and for which there may be rather simple answers.

ONE suggestion, that I made earlier, is also quite mundane and practical: after woodblocking the sheet, it may have been observed that the stencils (plural - one for each colour) had been cut for the Emperor as mirror image. IF such was the situation, it would have been simpler to whitewash the one card (still uncut) and re-apply a new small individual woodblock to the area with the image mirrored to what we now have, and then be able to apply the stencils.

The reason I mentioned that many decks have in any case this card mirrored is simply that this would account for something like the stencils having been prepared accordingly.

Of course it is as possible that a card from another set was inserted in that deck, and that this second set (now otherwise lost) had numerous cards 'ghosted'.

What the normal 'ghosting' explanation does not do is explain how only one card is so clearly marked with such precision.
Image
&
Image
association.tarotstudies.org

Re: Noblet Emperor's new clothes

#25
jmd wrote:ONE suggestion, that I made earlier, is also quite mundane and practical: after woodblocking the sheet, it may have been observed that the stencils (plural - one for each colour) had been cut for the Emperor as mirror image. IF such was the situation, it would have been simpler to whitewash the one card (still uncut) and re-apply a new small individual woodblock to the area with the image mirrored to what we now have, and then be able to apply the stencils.
I'm afraid this scenario is not logical.
The stencils were made from extra prints. The black key line image was used as a reference, and holes were cut with a knife. Then it was varnished for durability. It didn't take much effort to make the stencil, and it is virtually impossible to cut one card "backwards" on a stencil since you are cutting on the printed image itself.
Re-cutting a woodblock in reverse to accommodate a backwards stencil is far, far harder than re cutting a paper stencil.
Also, you cannot easily "whitewash" ink that has been printed onto cardstock. And you would not re-print a single card in the midst of a page of other cards. If for some strange reason you wanted to re-print a card, you would make a new block with that card on it, possibly repeated several times, and just print replacement pages of emperors.

Kaplan's set of Dotti woodblocks are notable here:
Five of the blocks each contain 15 cards.
The sixth block has three card images repeated five times. (5 coins, ace swords, ace batons.)
You need to make one print of this block for every five of the others.
Thus also demonstrating a case in which decks were NOT assembled from isolated, intact printed sheets.
jmd wrote: What the normal 'ghosting' explanation does not do is explain how only one card is so clearly marked with such precision.
If the card was in the middle of a row of five, and the sheets neatly stacked, it easily explains the precision.

As far as it being the only one in the deck....

If anything, I think this whole episode suggests that decks at the Noblet house were likely assembled from stacks of each card on a table, and not from individual sets of intact sheets. This is actually quite a sensible way to manage the variety of defects that would occur. If one or two random cards got ruined, the usable ones from the sheet could still be used. At the end of the run, you would print out only the blocks that contained cards that were missing from the table, and so make up all of your replacements at once.

The other ghosted cards were most probably either thrown away, or landed in other deck(s)....
I am not a cannibal.

Re: Noblet Emperor's new clothes

#28
Personally, I don't believe the Emperor's direction makes any difference.

Printmaking from blocks or plates reverses the original image.
If you use a drawing or an old print as a direct reference to cut a block, the new prints are reversed from the old reference.
Vieville is almost certainly an example of this.

More importantly, I personally don't think the direction of the Emperor makes any difference in the original intent.
If it DID, they would have made a point of consistently getting it right. I have no reason to believe that cardmakers didn't know what they were doing. In other words, I think he's facing "reversed" from the usual standard because it doesn't actually matter which way he faces.

The concept of left-to-right narrative is relatively modern, and is rooted in the later dominance of literacy and writing.
During the Medieval period, from which I would suggest the Tarot de Marseille sprung, narrative often tended to run from bottom-to-top, and from outer-to-inner, as a circular approach. Early Gothic stained glass windows generally started at the base, and worked their way up to the upper middle, as a reflection of the idea of ascension. And the window in the center would be the important one, flanked by the lesser subjects. Gothic cathedral portals start at the outermost, and work toward the center, over the door. This is how people used to read imagery. Once printing and reading gained power, things shifted toward left-to-right and top-to-bottom.

I'll leave beginning-to-end for another discussion....

Of course none of this is absolute, and never was,
but perception did vary over time, and a number of gears wore out...
I am not a cannibal.

Re: Noblet Emperor's new clothes

#29
Hello friends.
I am more closer with Yves explanation about this subject :

[quote="Yves Le Marseillais"]Hi Ross,

Yes it is what I think at this stage.

I also thought (but I think I am wrong) that, as to save paper (expensive material at this time) some card makers did used reverse side of not yet colored cards.
The Universe is like a Mamushka.

Re: Noblet Emperor's new clothes

#30
OnePotato wrote:I personally don't think the direction of the Emperor makes any difference in the original intent.
If it DID, they would have made a point of consistently getting it right. I have no reason to believe that cardmakers didn't know what they were doing. In other words, I think he's facing "reversed" from the usual standard because it doesn't actually matter which way he faces.

The concept of left-to-right narrative is relatively modern, and is rooted in the later dominance of literacy and writing.
...except that the dexter-sinister orientation was important even in heraldry... so there is a sense in which the direction the Emperor faces has importance. Also, the 'face of God' is at times described in profile.
Image
&
Image
association.tarotstudies.org

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron