Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#71
De Sphaera - Allegory Sforza
A conclusion with some remarks on the subject at hand.
ALLEGORY - a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another.
De Sphaera - can be at least 3 different things in the MATERIAL world: a "ball" - a "celestial globe" or the orbit of celestial bodies.
First some remarks about your habit of quoting:

The JPG you brought is (like often) out of context because it belongs to a work that like the "cards" didn't come with a #hashtag - so scholars who worked on it for quite some time decided to NAME it because of it's content:
De Sphaera - Allegory Sforza
Other works in the same tome (in a mythological sense) are (even on the 1st look) to be identified as "mythical" at least (unless you do not belong to the flock of The Latter-Day Saints I suppose):



Image





http://www.facsimilefinder.com/facsimil ... -facsimile

It doesn't get much more allegorical or mythical or alchemical like this I suspect but considering the other works in there to be of a much more "astrological" nature and content the scholars decided to put a lid on the pot and call it like others they already labeled from the same period an ASTROLOGICAL work.
But that is of less importance here.
What to ME is of importance here is HOW you proceeded with dragging this (not very) innocent beauty up and into your dark mundane alley.

You are (in my mind) willfully MISrepresenting the source that you got it from to make a point for your "home-team".
RESEARCH - in NO world - is NOT done like that!

Mythological pictures (Allegory [sic!] Sforza) tend to follow specific "rules" since the first pictures were drawn on the walls of caves. You could read some interesting things about that in modern works because from the gist you could take that there are "patterns" that seem to be somewhat intrinsic to humans in every culture and age when you know how to spot them and put them into (sometimes new) contexts ((like the swastika for example OR our KILIM (pattern))

Just as ONE example of authors that deal with such themes from an art-historian's POV - but 1 I would recommend to start with:

Max Raphael

https://dictionaryofarthistorians.org/raphaelm.htm

https://books.google.de/books/about/Pre ... edir_esc=y

http://www.suhrkamp.de/werkausgabe/werkausgabe_92.html

http://www.amazon.de/Wiedergeburtsmagie ... ax+Raphael

Especially this last one (please copy > paste the link for possibly watching it) should concern you when... OK you don't - just saying...
And if you should feel obliged to judge the books by their cover like you do sometimes (or layout) - please don't. Read first.

And like I mentioned sometimes before it should be good to know about symbols and how they drift from one older culture to the offspring and others that on the outside seem not to be of the same kin. A very versed author in these fields is of course:

Michael S. Heiser

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_S._Heiser

Here is an example from his work about "Angel(s)" that would fit right into our (not so?) allegorical category - but here from a literal POV:

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/Whatisa ... TS2010.pdf

And naturally there are sharply contrasting reviews on the VERY same matter - BUT referring to the same knowledgeable background and educational standard (all the while they can not really touch the irritant stone):

http://israelitewatchmen.com/Emahiser/Y ... Elohim.pdf

Now imagine for a moment that someone who has not even been to college yet would "refute" the both POVs and to what possible purpose for The WORLD this would add?!


For the interested laymen in the psychological side of things (yes metaphors and symbols CAN have an effect on - or stem from - DREAMS and such... ) please start with Carl Gustav Jung for example...

When you read some and some others of these books you could look at the:
"De Sphaera - Allegory Sforza" and actually SEE the "celestial bodies" in their orbit like you would have them in a snapshot if you took a photo with your mobile (me: I don't have a cam on that device - I just use it for communication in old fashioned ways) or cam when you should have it "am Mann".

The HELMETS of course are in orbit AROUND The TREE and the VISCONTI take the FEMALE or lunar position on the LEFT - not on the right like you may think when you look at the allegory with uneducated eyes.

Mythological depictions are made for RITUAL thinking ( > Max R. above) and the VIEWER is IN the picture and looks at himself who stands there gazing and LEARNING. The PICTURE as (now) a person (a teacher) teaches the "apprentice" who showed up to watch and learn something new about The SFORZA:

That The VISCONTI are on the MOTHERLY side of The FAMILY & The WORLD (inheritance and ALL > WISDOM - KINDNESS - Spirituality...
All such traits are from ANCIENT times bound to the LEFT. The MOON is TOO. HERE.

NOT necessarily THERE where the CONTENT comes from. But being A LECTURE (Allegory) it is like a good school book made in a way that the PREschooler CAN understand.

Translated to political catholic terms of that long gone hour it means that the VISCONTI are The HOLY SEE (in that specific "private" RELIGION) and The SFORZA are the STRONG RIGHT ARM to enforce the divine word that was spoken by The DRAGON and provided for the waiting world by The VISCONTI - now being a very old "private" RELIGION the prophetess should be FEMALE and I bet you know her name(s)...

And did you know that:
Christoforo de Predis worked around 1471 as an illuminator for the Court of the Sforza. He was an outstanding artist of 15th century book illumination. De Predis was born around 1440/45, presumably in Milan. He was deaf-mute by birth.
Quite a sequacious choice for a work of this above matter - OR it could be coincidence as they say...

This all should sound delusional and very very off and totally alien for your eyes...

((but you COULD make more sense of the older VISCONTI "cards" where WOMEN are not only slightly above the common (later) TAROT quota but also pursuing different "professions" in different "costumes" with different "staff" and unusual "requisites" what lead to a HORROR of misREADING by contemporary "researchers" - again: just saying!))

...but it's an:
ALLEGORY - a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another.
So you could obviously search for other meanings for the JPG you brought BUT NOT in REAL events!

Adrian

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#72
Since this topic deals with the "stellar" characteristics of the Visconti-Sforza Tarot (not only in 3-D anymore) I think this "background" info should fit in here too. I just made a similar edit in the 1st post of "Tarotée - The Back-Door To The Secret" here:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1044&p=15667#p15667

and on Aeclectic in a thread dedicated to LEFOV > LE MAT that once was started by jmd 14 years ago in the post #84 for similar reasons:

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=7597
>>> EDITION on the 19th + 21st of February 2016:

I created 6 folders with 37 (from more than 500 of the same format) files on Dropbox. Just read them according to the file names for better orientation and a little background knowledge in the LiBER MUNDi thread on Aeclectic. The text files were made available by Ross Caldwell once for the LiBER MUNDi thread:

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=128423


1-16 GODs:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/706svldbo6op ... Gy1Sa?dl=0

2-How the Geomantic ORACLE works:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/65099zo7i856 ... VqHma?dl=0

3-How the 16 Signs got their Names in the 1st place:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fwzqndsoj5tb ... PUc2a?dl=0

4-Distribution & Variations
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hyykxpkb4xjw ... vkV2a?dl=0

5-How the STRUCTURE of the 16 Signs is based on the 8 folded STAR from the BEGINNING+2. Form
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/zzabpvkfqp8e ... gxHua?dl=0

6-Meaning is a matter of PERSPECTIVE
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/7bn39pseo1uv ... Kd-Wa?dl=0


The GEOMANTIC system with it's 16 distinct and ancient "characters" ( > 16 GODs) was very popular in the Renaissance throughout Europe and Filippo Maria Visconti (like many aristocrats) had books in his libraries about the concerned themes - especially Geomantics.
Reasonably yours

Adrian

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#74
I'm sorry Huck.
I've tested them before and after inserting and they worked.

But thanks for informing me about that mishap!

Since I've just finished an addition to the above link I will edit the post above and control how this works out.
A similar edition I made already to the 1st page of the "Tarotée - The Back-Door To The Secret" topic with the added links there. (Control: Check > all links in the above Post work!)

I'll have to adapt the text here a bit - so you can go THERE too if you want to click. Since I've controlled them just 5 minutes ago they SHOULD (hopefully) work.

If there are any inconveniences with them - please let me know.

Adrian

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#75
Hell :-h again dear readers.

Some time ago I announced that I would publish Mr. William M. Voelkle's answer to the inquiry a friend whose name is withheld here by request made on my behalf about the measurements and weight of the remaining Visconti-Sforza Tarot „cards“ (PMB) in his care at The Morgan Library & Museum as Senior Research Curator of the Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts Collection.

The original letter you'll find at the first page here in the first post:

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1084

http://www.themorgan.org/collection/tarot-cards

I didn't do that so far because after his answer that you will find below I had several more detailed questions about the specifics of the measurements and other issues that I mailed to him – but he did not reply further to my amazed disappointment – so I (and you maybe... ) have to deal with what I (we) have got here.

It is still enough to confirm my assertion that the PMB (and all the other BIG HAND MADE depictions on cardboard from the Visconti-Sforza family with the Kilim-Pattern in the background of the „personas“ that were taken so far by all „experts“ (including Mr. Voelkle) to be PLAYING CARDS were NONE – AND were never meant to BE:
Re: Visconti-Sforza Tarot Cards

19.01.2016

Dear [name withheld by request],

First, I should say that our deck originally contained 78 cards, of which 74 are preserved, divided among the Morgan Library (35 cards), the Accademia Carrara in Bergamo (26 cards) and the Colleoni family (13 cards).

I was intrigued by your request to learn the thickness and weight of the cards, but for another reasons, to see if there were differences between the original cards and the replacement cards - as proved to be the case. as I was eager to see if there was a difference The cards were all 173 x 87 mm, and the weight and thickness of the original cards, be they picture cards or number cards, was fairly consistent. The thickness of the Hanged Man and the Queen of Swords, on laminated stock, was about 1.5 mm and the weight, in grams of the former was 14.78, and the latter, 14.84.

The replacement cards were on solid stock, and Temperance and Fortitude, for example, were less than 1 mm thick, and weighed weighed 11.94 grams and 12.53 grams respectively.

Sincerely yours,

William Voelkle


William M. Voelkle
Senior Research Curator
Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts
The Morgan Library & Museum
225 Madison Avenue
New York, NY  10016„3403

TEL: 212 590-0364
FAX: 212 768-5665
NET: wvoelkle@themorgan.org
Evaluation of Mr. Voelkle's reply:

It is very telling that he (and neither did ANYONE: not Mr. Kaplan – nor Ross Caldwell or Huck – to name just a few accepted experts on this matter of the PMB... ) did NOT care about these defining measurements of CARDS in the 1st place BEFORE taking the PMB (and the others in that category) for PLAYING cards.

Mr. Voelkle states that:
... I should say that our deck originally contained 78 cards, of which 74 are preserved, ...
So there were originally 78 rectangular pieces of artfully gilded and painted cardboard that resembled a deck of cards by looks BUT with hole(s) in everyone of them to be hung (on a wall) and were IMPOSSIBLE to be PLAYED with (just like cards) just because of their measurements:
The cards were all 173 x 87 mm, …

... The thickness … … was about 1.5 mm ...

… the weight, in grams … was [between] 14.78, and ... 14.84.
Calculation:

78 x 1.5 mm = 117 mm (11,7 cm or 4,6063 inches) thickness of the whole former complete pack.

78 x 14,82 grams = 1155,96 grams (40,7753 oz or 2,5485 lb or 1,156 kg for the complete pack

(Because of the pure GOLD that was part of the LAYERED construction [laminated stock [sic!]] of all 78 rectangles and which was about ½ mm thick)

173 x 87 mm > rectangular measurements of all 78 tableaus

From the „thickness“ of 4,6063 inches of the supposed whole pack alone it should be clear that only a giant like the „Fortitude“ guy could have managed to shuffle them – even IF they had been made of unpainted cardboard only (which they are of course not – and so: much to fragile!!).

To give you a comparison:

The DAL NEGRO replica of the PMB is very close to it's original measurements with 178 x 92 mm
BUT only 25 mm thick with all it's 78 cards.

So to reach the 117 mm of the original PMB you would have to stack more than 4 and ½ packs of the DAL NEGRO replica deck on top of each-other.

Those who own the Dal Negro will shake their heads now about the impossibility to manage such a pack.

Now: Why did Mr. Kaplan report that he estimated the whole pack of the PMB would be „about the height of 2 normal packs of cigarettes“ (from memory only) - what is about half of the correct thickness - when measuring 1 „card“ alone would have told him otherwise?

Because his whole fame and reputation is based on the FALSE (falsified) assumption that the VISCONTI-SFORZA TAROT „CARDS“ were PLAYING CARDS and so ROOT for a GAME that he now could feed to the masses in countless variations without any historical reason.

Once he told his assumption in his publication NO one ever would look again – what is really a shame for the Senior Research Curator of the Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts Collection at The Morgan Library & Museum I believe.

Now back to Mr. Voelkles reply and my evaluation of it:

You all know that the PMB is not made by one hand.
6 rectangles are known as „replacement cards“ from a 30 – 40 years later and Mr. Voelkle refers to them by that name what irritated me at first because I didn't refer to them by that notion.

Those 6 have a completely different make-up!
The replacement cards were on solid stock, and Temperance and Fortitude, for example, were less than 1 mm thick, and weighed weighed 11.94 grams and 12.53 grams respectively.
The difference in thickness and weight should be on part of the MISSING solid GOLD (and here you were RIGHT HUCK with your assumption!!) which was replaced with gold-LEAF.

Now: What does this tell (us?) me?

When the rectangles were under what shuffling methods ever an alchemist or a giant could have applied to them to make them fit for a game of cards at a table without breaking or spoiling or bending them...

… anyone at the table would have known WHERE those special 6 would be.

It is customary that ALL cards should be of the same make-up naturally in a fair game to offer no space for possible cheating – aristocracy gamble(s/d) often for money and riches like houses or horses and such other riches as a last retreat for excitement.

Money for the missing gold should have not been a problem and could have been made up for resemblance with other material like lead and thicker cardboard.
So it was all about LOOKS from a distance - from let's say 3 meters or yards perhaps where all those differences would become insignificant.


Have a good time

Adrian

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#76
I remember ...

You once ...
20 x 3,8mm = 76 mm and 54 x 3,3mm = 178,2 mm, makes the 74 cards together more than 26 cm thick.
Voelkle:
"The thickness of the Hanged Man and the Queen of Swords, on laminated stock, was about 1.5 mm and the weight, in grams of the former was 14.78, and the latter, 14.84."
I had stated ...
... 3,8 mm is much too high, I would assume ...
Density* (g/cm3) for Gold as an element is given at this list ...
http://www.science.co.il/PTelements.asp?s=Density
with 19.32.

Assuming, that this is correct for the gold used on the cards (which might be doubted) one card couldn't have more 14.8/19.32, so roughly 75% of a cm3 (but only, if I imagine that the paper's weight = 0, which I naturally cannot imagine).

So let's think about paper ...

https://www.architekturbedarf.de/katalo ... 1000x10-mm
... offers paper with a thickness of 1 mm and this has the weight of 800 gram for 1 square-meter. 1 square meter would give 66.7 cards of the size 17,3 x 8, 7, so nearly a full deck of 70 cards (I suspect, that the original PMB had 5x14 cards).

If I take 1.5 mm as thickness for the same type of paper, I would have 1200 grams for 66,6 cards ...
... and 1200/66,6 = 18,02 gram for each card. So then I would be already far above that, what Voelkle has calculated (around 14,8 gram), and that without any gold (although gold in any form should be much heavier than paper).

Something is wrong, either the cardmaker had used a less heavy paper material, or Voelkle was too optimistic with 1,5 mm thickness for the cards.
It seems logical, that modern machines can press the paper more intensive than a paper maker in 15th century could do it. As we don't know the factor of the difference, it seems likely, that we cannot calculate the weight of the used gold on the card.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#77
Hi Huck and thanks for your thoughtful reply!
You [Me: Adrian] once …

20 x 3,8mm = 76 mm and 54 x 3,3mm = 178,2 mm, makes the 74 cards together more than 26 cm thick.
That was my calculation for the comical model that I published to start attention on this topic of interest:

The REAL 3-D thickness of the PMB Tarot subjects that never was published but only assumed (Mr. Kaplan!) and so led to the assumption that those PMB (and the others in the same category) subjects were indeed playing CARDS – what they can NOT be from their make-up on alone:

Highly fragile multi media/material layered art pieces without any COATING ( > shellac would have been the material of choice back then) to shelter the uneven colorful and highest elevation on the „face“ of the specific PMB subject:

The picture (personas in a blue frame and symbols on the number subjects in a red frame) and the binding material (glue?) or method (sewing?) to keep those layers of cardboard and gold and colors in place for the „games at a table“.

So I made my model while accounting for all these problems (and explaining it in the accompanying texts there) based only on the dubious official notion of „strong cardboard“ (without ANY caliper!) and the mentioning of pure gold as a material that enriched the PMB subjects.

My own practical knowledge based on personal experience with manufacturing mixed media art played a good part in the creation of the comical 3-D model too of course.

The above just to sum up the situation for any new readers.
I (you: Huck) had stated …

... 3,8 mm is much too high, I would assume …
AND you were RIGHT concerning the REAL measurements.

Though 1,5 mm in total thickness without any coating and WEAK (less than 1 mm) and NOT STRONG cardboard (like The MORGAN states in it's own texts to further the ILLUSION that the PMB were made for PLAYING at a table – which they could not endure and be that well preserved) wouldn't and couldn't have made those PMB subjects fit for a game of any kind that includes shuffling:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lpV-5qPMec

When you watch this innocent enthusiast shuffle her Giant Rider-Waite Tarot Deck here with ...

165 x 95 mm > rectangular measurements of the Giant Rider-Waite Tarot Deck

in comparison to

173 x 87 mm > rectangular measurements of the original PMB tableaus

... just entertain the thought that she would have to:

1) manage a deck of similar rectangular measurements – but nearly 5 times thicker ( roughly 12 cm or 117 mm)

and

2) deal with the above described fragility of the precious PMB.

Now think about the abrasion patterns that would occur during such shuffling while the pack would be due to it's immense thickness under so much more PRESSURE due to the SMALL hands which want to CONTROL such an unmanageable process.

The first things to GO forever would be the PAINT on the face of the „card“ while the „edge“ of the next „card“ scrubs the highly elevated colorful face away like a scraper.

Highly amusing to watch these shuffling methods here too - even when done with normal formated cards - and imagining some of these things would have been done to the PMB for a century or so. And do not forget to imagine the sheer HIGHT of 12 cm when you imagine the 173 x 87 mm rectangular measurements of the original PMB tableaus ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn9iLR99iAM


THIS of course did not happen because we both can enjoy the PMB subjects now at The MORGAN.

What we can observe there is that THIS abrasion did NOT happen – BUT another kind of abrasion did AND it befell mostly the LOWEST parts of the FACES of the Great Secrets and Courts: The KILIM of GOLD that was obviously reddened before what we can tell from the remains of the red color on it at the different subjects.

This kind of abrasion is consistent only with holding a „card“ for close observation between fingers on the „card-back“ and thumb on the „card-face“ close to but not TOUCHING the PERSON of interest ((and afterwards maybe placing it (back) on the nail at the wall... ))


You are of course very right that much more is questionable concerning the documentation of the PMB – not only at The MORGAN – and I gave an example before from Great Britain with Dr Dee's Magical Mirror:

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/c ... ror&page=1

Now: this is one piece of solid obsidian.

Since the PMB consists mostly of LAYERED rectangular pieces of art - with nowadays technology it should be possible and interesting to look DEEP into the subject and see HOW this layered construction was MADE to endure the supposed STRESS gaming at a table would have imposed on the poor subjects.

I can't quite follow your argument about the gold though.

We have only an assumption for the from both sides worked (punched and engraved) gold that should be roughly 0,5 mm thick AFTER this done work.
So the gold itself could have been 0,3 or 0,25 or 0,2 or whatever caliper for the sheet of gold BEFORE the work on it was done and it was somehow fastened to the cardboard.

So I cannot see a solid base for your above calculation.

We sadly have only rough estimations because Mr. Voelkle was indeed not very thorough with „his“ measurements (that – so I was informed later – were only taken by an assistant with an unaccounted method) and he concluded and approximated from there.
So much for his passion for RESEARCH!

So not much to go by and further as I did in my above conclusions I'm afraid Huck.

For your paper calculation goes same.
We have no data concerning the PMB due to Mr. Voelkle and the VERY sloppy factual research situation.

I hinted at the old paper and especially cardboard production before - with links to historical sites too (could be here in this thread or the (closed) sibling at Aeclectic.
The density should have been a GREAT problem with cardboard less than 1 mm thick – and so the stability for PLAYING the PMB in a GAME at a TABLE.

To all my questions - and they were MANY and DETAILED - I did ask him based on his reply he didn't answer – so I thought to publish his contact data (as I did above!) to create some possible pressure on him what could only come from YOU guys!

Adrian

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#78
This update does not really belong here - but since some readers may not only be interested in the PMB and hold a similar interest for the evolution of Tarot (especially from the PMB to the Tarot de Marseille) in general - I want to make sure that you do not miss out on this new topic on the Unicorn Terrace:

Tarot de Marseille Type II: The Ouroboros Project
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1119

Anyone interested in new information on The SECRET of the Tarot de Marseille (foremost Type II) and how to access it is very welcome.

There the OP is just up with some fundamental links – for example a conversion from the scribd PDF by „C“ into 270 JPGs on Dropbox because scribd got less readable in the last year for non-members there.
The original file is still up there – but now you can have a more comfortable look page by page.

I often mentioned the OUROBOROS and his significance for the Tarot and it's formation.
The Goldschimidt cards (if you remember?) depict him just in the correct position and his lore is portrayed in lively movement through them to create the EGG that I hinted at in some comments.

„C“ did present that already - but of course in a shortened version because (I assume) when someone is so close with any subject that it becomes difficult to explain a personal very familiar process to a person NOT familiar with the same matter.

Many details blur into one frame and may get lost for the newcomer and the process is not understood to it's complete content – so I tried to make up for that because I experienced myself months of reflecting on what he might have meant with some phrases and pictures.

Adrian

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#79
To your question about the thickness of old cards I've found the following opinion:

http://www.playingcardforum.com/index.php?topic=9811.0 /author: Variantventures, 1st post
I've been trying to gather more information about the thickness of early playing cards. This is a crucial question when attempting to re-create early playing cards so I've gone to some effort. I have contacted multiple museums and conservators and been fortunate enough to have some responses. The Beinecke Library, in particular, was exceedingly helpful. I am still in awe of the amount of work they did in response to my request. Most of my requests are still outstanding but I hope to receive more responses this month.

The summary is: Playing cards were constructed of a smooth, white paper made from hemp and linen. In early playing cards this paper was between 0.17mm-0.24mm thick with 0.19mm-0.22mm being the most common range. This equates to a paper weight of approximately 199gsm (plus or minus a few grams). Cards were constructed of multiple layers of cards, in most cases, which gives weights of 400gsm to 800gsm. With modern cards being produced in a range of 290gsm to 320gsm you can see that early playing cards were much thicker. As time went on card makers became more sophisticated and began producing cardstock using a thick (0.22mm to 0.26mm) paper for the core and thin paper (0.11mm) for the face and back.

An interesting note on this research is generated by the Morisca Cards held by the Fournier Museum. This museum deserves some credit as they are, so far as I am aware, the first to take a thickness measurement of cards in their holdings and publish those measurements. And those measurements are interesting because they reveal the Morisca cards are, at their thickest, 0.18mm thick. This is, of course, nicely within the range of of other measurements.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#80
Greetings Huck!

Thanks for stopping by and informing me about the opinion about the thickness of old cards that you found on another forum.

BUT I've NEVER had a „question about the thickness of old cards“ in general and from my statements in this topic and elsewhere it should be abundantly clear why this is of no concern for me.
When you did indeed find something in my words that invoked this belief in your mind please quote so that I can be more clear about that!

It would be great though when the author who seems to be on good terms with The Beinecke Library and praises their helpfulness on the thickness measurement matter could get the concerned thickness data of the there held „Visconti Tarot“ from The Cary Collection of Playing Cards – otherwise known as the Cary-Yale Tarocchi or the Visconti di Modrone cards.

The whole set:
http://brbl-dl.library.yale.edu/vufind/ ... t&type=tag

1 item:
http://brbl-dl.library.yale.edu/vufind/Record/3432602

Here you can see that the measurements provided are equally sloppy as the measurements at The Morgan:
Physical Description:
1 card
col.
19 x 9 cm.
This is of course totally unacceptable in a scientific field when those items are considered „PLAYING CARDS“ because the THICKNESS of each item (in this case MORE than 78 (!!) items) would add to an UNmanageable thickness for the whole pack – considering the roughly 1,5 mm for each original item that Mr. Voelkle provided for the Visconti-Sforza Tarot in his care > 12 cm for the whole pack!

If these rectangles should be of less thickness they would have been broken while playing AND if they would be thicker they would be an even MORE clumsy block in the hands of the "players" - unfit to be shuffled and so unfit for a "card play" with "playing cards" - no?

More here with all explanations and links:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1084&p=18324#p16935

These (and the Brera-Brambilla set in The Pinacoteca di Brera:)

http://pinacotecabrera.org/en/

... share a similar make-up with the Visconti-Sforza Tarot (PMB) in The Morgan Library who where introduced at length here with my findings and analysis of Mr. Voelkle's measurements he provided in his answer to my request.

The whole point of this topic here was/is to prove that ESPECIALLY the handmade Tarots of the Visconti (and later Sforza too) - which are all described to be made of CARDBOARD which is considerably thicker than paper – were NEVER MEANT to be PLAYING CARDS.

What my opinion about their purpose is (was) I have also described in detail in several topics and comments:
They were MEANT to be HUNG on a wall (look at their well used HOLES) in special configurations and changing patterns due to a Master-plan that can be REconstructed from several details on a grid like the Kilim Carpet in the background of ALL personas of ALL Visconti family sets – so that The BOOK could be read that they present.

All the different specifics of their consistent mixed media make-up combined with the now available (still very sloppy!) thickness measurements for the PMB by Mr. Voelkle which prove now that they were not playing cards AT ALL and their abrasion patterns and HOLES in all of them point in this direction.

I did this above write-up just out of the top of my head.
Be back later perhaps.
And you could be more precise in the meantime – maybe?

I find it quite astonishing though that no-one (you included! - because here you would be one big step closer to your chess-like-assumption for early Tarot with an actual BOARD for the rectangles on which they would be placed – albeit with very different rules) would comment on the implications for this whole playing-card-drama that Mr. Kaplan set the stage for with his clearly by 50% falsified measurements which I explained already in detail.

You all claim to be after The Secret the rectangles hold - and you go for poems and paintings and genealogy and (catholic!) Christianity – but no-one seems to be interested in the FACTS:
measurements – mixed-media-make-up – usability in real-life-settings – abrasion patterns – suspicious holes – etc – etc – etc …

Why is that?

Adrian

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests

cron