What an excellent find!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B15SAM ... MtM3c/view
So The Beinecke Library cares deeply for the details - but I wonder why the author did not come to the same conclusion as we (mikeh & me) that the Visconti family cards were not meant for a card game in the usual sense of the word: at a table AFTER SHUFFLING them?
Maybe he'll think about that now?
Because it is crucial - no?
As I mentioned above the most elevated point on a "card" should be aimed at for "maximum thickness measurement" - because when they are stacked upon each-other THIS point is what adds to the height of the whole pack.
This deck has other specifics than the Visconti-Sforza because of the additional female cards for the court of course. What were they meant for? Would they stay in the pack when it was in use - together with the male personage - or would they replace that male personage for a different game?
I have suggestions for that and it can be gleaned from the appearance of the misinterpreted "VIRTUES" - who are the same trumps as in the other decks - only "matured".
This is a complicated matter because you didn't add the 16 Geomantic Characters as "casting molds" for 16 Great Secrets to your "think tank" so far and I would have to draw on that deeply to explain.
I would suggest that you make up your minds with the already given links in the "quote box" with the headline:
>>> EDITION on the 19th + 21st of February 2016
at the beginning of:
Here now are the maximum thickness measurements from the link:
1. "card" page 2 (Page of Cups): maximum thickness measurement: 1.55 mm (left top brim)
2. "card" page 3 (The World): maximum thickness measurement: 1.45 mm (left middle brim)
3. "card" page 4 (Death): maximum thickness measurement: 1.47 mm (left bottom & bottom brim)
4. "card" page 5 (Female Knight of Swords): maximum thickness measurement: 1.47 mm (left bottom brim)
5. "card" page 6 (Love): maximum thickness measurement: 1.47 mm (left top brim)
Like I expected the maximum thickness measurement appears always at the "brim" of each "card" - that stems from the folded over paper from the card back and some additional color to give the card face at least SOME protection when it so happened that they HAD to be stacked upon each-other for transportation perhaps.
Like I mentioned before: The most SHALLOW areas on the card face suffered the MOST abrasion – what is consistent with holding the „card“ between thumb on the card-face and the 4 fingers on the card back for close observation of the „main subject“ the „scene“ that is depicted – and so an observer wouldn't TOUCH the depicted persona!
This kind of abrasion that mostly took away ALL of the red color the KILIM was reddened with is not what you would see with any „normal usage“ of normal cards.
Just holding 5 cards in a game of Poker would result in „pressing“ the LESS elevated (in comparison to the "higher brim") persona or scenario-areas on 4 of the broad card faces against the 4 card backs while the thumb would occasionally rub across the persona to take away the fine lines and soft material in decades of usage!
BUT those areas where the personage is depicted suffered almost never ANY damage!
When the „card“ would be pulled out of the „spread“ in the hand to be placed on the table - additional damage would happen to the fragile card face!
And the author did grant your wish mikeh concerning the measurements of the d'Este „cards“ I see to my amazement – because I see that (like I predicted) no normal card-play disruption (see above!) has happened to them either. Even the background is very often completely intact!
This means there were never USED in ANYWAY - apart from pinning them to a wall with 2 broad-headed nails for a permanently fixed display.
Fortunately a card-back view is also provided (what would be awesome for the Visconti-Sforza Tarot too ... !!) that allows us to get more informed about the holes - but this shall follow later ...
There is much more to add and I'll be back later when I have a little more time on my hands