Hello again Robert,

Google misleads you, Depaulis says that Hargrave date is unverified (and I suppose presented without proper evidences by Hargrave) but Hargrave's book is from 1930, 1680 is the date announced in the book for the deck !
The date was subsequently quoted to affirm Besançon type decks existed in 1680.
It appears from TD researches that JPM was baptised in 1690 so was probably born not far from that and that he was admitted as a "bourgeois" in 1720 so it would be an approximate date for the middle of his career as cardmaker or maybe the beginning. He would have been thirty years old by then so it looks likely. He appears also in a document in 1737. Regarding this elements and the style of the deck, it seems that it is definitely from the 18th century.
Anyway being born in or very close to 1690, there's no way he could have published a deck before 1701.

Bertrand

Bertrand wrote:Hello again Robert,

Google misleads you, Depaulis says that Hargrave date is unverified (and I suppose presented without proper evidences by Hargrave) but Hargrave's book is from 1930, 1680 is the date announced in the book for the deck !

Bertrand

Thanks Bertrand,

Yes, here is the book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Playing ... 048621544X

It seems Depaulis also changed the dating for the Hautot on page 80, can you tell us what he says?

Well, assuming I am correct about Hautot being knocked out of the group, it seems the two remaining from Dummett's group are the Vieville and the Paris. We can add to that the Noblet, and probably the Chosson.

We're back to four. Do we have more??

Some doubt the age of the Chosson, I don't know the reasons.

But there is a 5th, which at least should be considered: The Minchiate Francesi, which was arranged in 3 different versions, with 42, 41 and 22 special cards. It are always the same motifs, and these should have been done c. 1660. The versions differ ONLY in the numbers.
It's not clear, if the 22 version existed in 17th century, but naturally all cards existed. This had the usual form with 78 cards, so it definitely is a Tarot, though rather different.