Tarot History Forum

Magic Moon wrote,

It's possible that the 21+1 tarot structure emerged around the same time as the Minchiate deck, which already existed in 1466. The dates seem close for Minchiate I and Sermon Steele. Right?

About when the triumphs might have expanded from 14 (or 16, I would add, on the basis of Marziano's structure) in the game of triumphs (ignoring minchiate now), we have to bear in mind that we are talking about the situation in all the early centers of the game, or so I would hope: that is, first 14 or 16 everywhere, then at some point 22 everywhere, at least for trionfi. If so, one center could have added subjects earlier than the rest, the additions only spreading elsewhere later. Thus, Florence could have had all 22 by the early 1440s (or earlier, in my opinion), spreading to Bologna after Bologna became allied with Florence once Sante Bentivoglio came to power, then Milan by 1450, with the conquest of that city by Francesco Sforza, an ally of Florence. Or it could have gone in a series of additions, but the uniformity of subjects everywhere, which may have been a gradual thing, still controlled by Florence.

As far as 21 + 1 everywhere, it seems to me that the best conditions for it are after 1450, when the game is legalized in Florence and the Peace of Lodi is approaching. Legalization and peace offer much opportunity for expansion. That is also when Francesco installs himself in Milan. Whether the Visconti-Sforza/PMB of 1456-8 had all 22, or even 20, is unknown, in my opinion - although at least 20 is likely, because of the association with Florence, which had the Charles VI.

But even 14 is not ruled out, a deck without virtue cards, where the virtues, it seems to me, could have been represented by the corresponding suit-signs (temperance = cups, prudence = coins, justice = swords, fortitude = staves), the Justice card elsewhere being converted to Fame, as Huck hypothesizes. The virtue/suit correspondences are indicated by the objects on the cards held, which correspond to objects held by the virtues. In this case, the object held by Prudence, a mirror, corresponds to Coins, and that by Fortitude a column, corresponding to Staves or Batons. These correspondences had already been articulated in the funeral oration for Gian Galeazzo Visconti in 1409, as Gertrude Moakley pointed out long ago:

O chiara luce, o specchio, o colonna, o sostegno, o franca spada, the la nostra contrada mantenevi sicura in monte e in piano!" (Arch stor tomb, anno xv, p. 792).

O clear light, o mirror, o column, o support, o confident sword, you kept our territory safe in the high places and the flat!

It reappears in Ringhieri's Cento giuochi liberali et d'ingegno, 1550 Bologna, p. 132, in Google Books: Before 1440, it is really unknown how long the game existed, how the records would have referred to it, or who it was for. Something did happen around 1439-1440 in Florence to give the deck enough of a boost to make the records - I would suspect the Unity Conclave as the main culprit. Perhaps before then it was simply recorded as "naibi," cards, in arrest records, which are our only other evidence in Florence before 1450 (besides Giusti) and which do not record the name of the game played; or else it was ignored as merely a children's educational game unknown outside its native place, made more interesting by some new rules and/or expansion of the deck. This prior use is suggested by the fact that the game was ordered for two children aged 9 and 11 in the d'Este household of 1442. Or perhaps it was invented elsewhere than Florence, somewhere pre-1440 records of its existence have not survived the centuries; I am thinking especially of the burning of the Visconti Palace in 1447 and of the Bentivoglio Palace in 1507. There is no shortage of avenues for its transmission, although so far none has stood out in particular.

There are also the Rothschild cards, long attributed to Dal Ponte by some (including me rather extensively here in 2014, although I should have said "Dal Ponte workshop"). That workshop existed in Florence for many years before the master's death in 1437 or 1438. Is there anything about the the cards to suggest 1435 or later, except the assumption that the game of triumphs didn't exist before then? The Accademia Gallery's 2016 Dal Ponte exhibition in Florence gave the cards a "ca. 1425" dating in its catalog (Giovanni Dal Ponte, p. 128), even while noting Ross's article, which insisted upon 1437 or later. The caalog cited Belosi's classic analysis of 1985, comparing aspects of the cards to datable works of the workshop; it also noted the imperatori decks known to be produced in Florence in 1423 for the d'Este court. In addition (regardless of whether it is an Imperatori deck or not), I would note the similar design element of the Rothschild Emperor with the "Alessandro Sforza" Empress, namely the two small same-gender adult figures facing each other at the bottom of the card. This Empress is one of the two cards with 1428 or 1429 on them. The Scheggia workshop started in 1429.

Hi Mikeh

A double deck can be two identical decks. A deck of double cards can be a deck where each card is twice as thick. Another possibility is that each card is made from two sheets of paper glued together, while other decks could have cards made from a single sheet of paper. I don't quite understand Pratesi's argument regarding this. I think that it is in his article about naibi atributes. I think Pratesi is saying that all decks were made from two or more sheets of paper glued together. I am not sure that it were true. Some old decks had only a cardboard, as we see in the morish deck found in Sevilla (Spain) dated 1390-1420. There may be other examples of decks with cards considered double. Another example is the 40-card Cuckoo deck, where each card is repeated because there are two identical sequences of 20 cards in each sequence.

*******

You say that possibly the 22 allegorical tarot cards already existed in Florence around 1440. And you say that possibly those 22 allegorical cards spread to the rest of the regions shortly after 1450. That means you apply the 5x14 or 5x16 theory to only ten years (1440-1450) and only outside of Florence. This is surprising to me. I wonder if Teikemeier, Huck, and other scholars who defend the 5x14 theory also think that Florence had 22 allegories as early as 1440. The 70-card decks commissioned by Borso d'Este in 1457 had 14 trumps according to the 5x14 theory. But you say that in that year the trump decks had 22 tarot cards everywhere. I'm wondering what you think about those Borso decks from 1457. As for the Visconti Sforza Pierpont deck, it seems you could accept that it was created in 1452 with 22 trump cards, which is consistent with the theory that the second artist created six or eight replacement cards. Today, I'm both surprised and frightened by how difficult it is to reach a theoretical consensus on basic issues.

Magic Moon wrote,

A deck of double cards can be a deck where each card is twice as thick. Another possibility is that each card is made from two sheets of paper glued together, while other decks could have cards made from a single sheet of paper

.
The decks that have survived from the 15th century were made with one sheet on one side, one sheet on the other and some filler in between. I think that woodblock decks were made on the same principle, with the backs larger than the fronts and the excess folded over onto the front for additional strength. I am not aware of any "single decks" in the sense of "one sheet". Nor am I aware of any decks twice as thick as others. I am not sure what that would mean: twice as much filler? Or with filler, as opposed to without filler, just the two sheets glued together? Do you have any examples?

Magic Moon wrote,

You say that possibly the 22 allegorical tarot cards already existed in Florence around 1440. And you say that possibly those 22 allegorical cards spread to the rest of the regions shortly after 1450. That means you apply the 5x14 or 5x16 theory to only ten years (1440-1450) and only outside of Florence. This is surprising to me.

I said "possibly" by 1440; my "possibly" for 22 also extends to Milan ca. 1450 and Bologna ca. 1445 or a little later. I didn't give a time for Ferrara. I do not think that 1460 is the latest the Steele Sermon could have been delivered orally, but certainly sometime in the 1460s. Moreover, it is not certain that the original sermon would have had all 22 subjects. Copyists added things to fit the time of their copying, as Pratesi has shown. The preacher himself could have added some subjects, if by the time he had a good copy done there were more. However, I see nothing wrong with there being a 22 trump game in Ferrara by 1457. This was a time of transition.

Magic Moon wrote,

The 70-card decks commissioned by Borso d'Este in 1457 had 14 trumps according to the 5x14 theory. But you say that in that year the trump decks had 22 tarot cards everywhere. I'm wondering what you think about those Borso decks from 1457. As for the Visconti Sforza Pierpont deck, it seems you could accept that it was created in 1452 with 22 trump cards, which is consistent with the theory that the second artist created six or eight replacement cards.

Besides a 22 trump game, Ferrara may also have had a 14 trump game. It is the same in Milan. This was a time of transition. There may have been different games at the same time, using different numbers of trumps. As I said, I do not exclude that the original ("first artist") PMB - which seems to have been made for a Venetian family 1456-1458, because of the King of Swords - originally had only the 14 "first artist" trumps that now survive. I do not exclude that the same trumps may have been used by the Sforza children in their game, whenever they started playing, perhaps by 1452. I do not exclude that the 14 trumps of Ferrara were not all the same as the 14 trumps of the PMB. In short, I allow for much uncertainty. I also allow for different games and different decks for those games, even in the same place and at the same time.

Magic Moon wrote,

I wonder if Teikemeier, Huck, and other scholars who defend the 5x14 theory also think that Florence had 22 allegories as early as 1440.

Huck and Teikemeier are the same person, also known as autorbis. Except on THF, I call him Lothar. I do not exclude his hypotheses (I do not find him advancing only one.) It seems to me that he does not go beyond the level of hypothesis. We are not on the level of belief. "Belief" gets in the way of finding the truth, in my opinion, by excluding from one's purview alternative hypotheses. So does "working hypothesis" in this area, although "working hypothesis" is appropriate in some cases (for example, it is my working hypothesis that the one copy of Guisto Guisti's diary that has "naibi a trionfi" is more accurate than the others). But in other areas, such as that around "5x14", it is important to keep various hypotheses in mind and look for confirmation or disconfirmation with regard to all of them.

Magic Moon wrote,

Today, I'm both surprised and frightened by how difficult it is to reach a theoretical consensus on basic issues.

Thanks for your honesty. Yes, it is a bit frightening. Not knowing is anxiety-producing. I like to think of it as a jigsaw puzzle with the box lost and only a few pieces put together here and there, with various ways they could be part of the whole. And there are also those who deny stages of development altogether, such as Ross. The argument is that if there were stages, we would expect to see more variety in the subjects from city to city, yet they are much the same, except for the obviously non-standard like the Sola-Busca and Boiardo, and in which they also place the Modrone. My reply is that there are only four, and these decks, except for the Modrone, are from the time when the subjects were probably standardized in their particular place. However, some of the old games were still played, and these used fewer subjects. Alternatively, people saved the enduring subjects and disposed of the others over time.

If so, why assume shorter decks preceding the one with 22 trumps at all? Well, in Ferrara there are the 70 card decks of 1457 and the "14" of New Year's 1441. There are also the 16 of Marziano's treatise, which seems to me a very important precedent. In addition, I would appeal to the orders later reported in various places. The part of the sequence from Devil to Sun always goes in the same order everywhere; likewise, the Bagatella is always first, the Hanged Man always between the Old Man and Death, and the Fool always outside the sequence. In contrast, the others (excluding the theologicals and Prudence) all vary by one or two places among the various lists: Love is before or after Fortitude, the Chariot is in a variety of places, the Wheel before or after the Chariot, the Angel sometimes after the World, sometimes after. With the four dignitaries, or “papi” (expanding from two or reduced from eight), the variation is that in Bologna and Piedmont, they were equal, and elsewhere not. How many of the four would have been additions is not clear. When the four are in a hierarchy, protocol indicates that the Pope would be highest. That leaves the Old Man and Death. Death is where it would be if the Petrarchan subjects were in order. If the Old Man is Time, it is out of Petrarchan order; the other Petrarchans all follow in order, if the Chariot is taken as it is in the Modrone, Chastity. On the other hand, putting him before Death is also a natural placement. The virtues of course are the most disordered of all. Their variability can be explained in terms of the different grids I propose connecting groups of trumps with suits.

Variability suggests the period before 1445, when city-states were isolated and focused on individual self-assertion; later, with Medici allies taking power first in Bologna (Sante Bentivoglio, 1445) and then in Milan (Francesco Sforza, 1450), an alliance generalized by the Peace of Lodi in 1453, a period of cooperation and greater unity ensued, where standardization would have been desired. Florence, as the dominant crafts center, would probably have played a leading role in this standardization. Other cities, especially Ferrara, could have introduced new subjects, but one center, probably Florence, would have determined whether these subjects would be part of the standard; any others would have been discarded.

I will say more about minchiate in another post.

About scempi deck or naibi scempi:

Both expressions are not exactly the same actually but the old notes could be not so specific. The old languaje was different that actual languaje and accounting notes may be abbreviated.

I ask the question from Mikeh. In the picture bottom we have the cards that I mentioned, found in Sevilla. I thought that it is made with only one thick cardboard. Right?

I tried to explain the difference between two decks (a double deck of cards) and a deck of double cards. I'm glad that made sense. Solving the mystery of Naibi Doppi is the next step. I'm not saying I know the solution to that mystery. There are several options. Do you know the solution?

The Italian word scampi is used commercially to describe something sold loose or single. However, in a general context, the Italian word scempi was also used to mean simple. It's currently used to describe something dilapidated or destroyed, but that's not what we're interested in. The meaning of scempi is useful to find out its opposite doppi.


******

About terrestrial trionfi:

As for terrestrial or earthly, they're different words with different meanings, but they're somewhat similar. Do you think Florio could be referring to the triumphs of life on Earth? I'm referring to the triumphs below the Tower.


********

About tarot evolution theories:

Thanks for the explanations about your early dating of the 21+1 structure. You say that this structure could have reached Ferrara in 1460, that is, after arriving in Milan, where it arrived after Florence, according to your proposal. That possibility hadn't occurred to me. The oldest evidence of the 21+1 structure seems to be related to Ferrara: Sermon Steele and Poema Boiardo. For that reason, I thought that the 21+1 structure originated in Ferrara and spread to Venice and France.

It seems there are many possibilities. I see that we are in the realm of speculation. Personally, I find it fanciful to claim that certain trump cards existed many years before the earliest evidence for each card. There is no early evidence for 22 allegories, as Teikemeier claims. I think that should be taken into consideration. I'm going to give an exaggerated example. Otherwise, we could even accept that the Tarot was born in Egypt, since there's no problem in stating this. The problem is that there's no evidence. Sorry for the exaggerated comparison. It's clear that the iconography of the Tarot is Christian and Renaissance. Not egyptian. You say that the high luminary cards have the same order in all traditions. I think that's logical if those cards were added after the others.

I thought there were two theories. One was the archetypal deck theory, defended by Dummett, who considered the 21+1 structure to be consolidated around 1450 (not before). The other was the 5x14 theory, defended by Teikemeier. It seems there are several variants for both theories.

It even seems like you're mixing both theories and creating your own fusion. I had my own take on the 5x14 theory and was fine-tuning some issues. However, what you're suggesting is quite different. Every scholar has their own theoretical version.

I know Ross defends the archetypal theory, but I don't believe the numbers noted on the Charles VI deck are evidence that the deck had 22 allegorical cards. That person could have noted the corresponding numbers to see which ones were missing, whether the others had been lost, or whether there were never any more trump cards in that 16-trump deck.


******

About scholars:

I know that Teikemeier is the same person as Huck. Thanks for this public afirmation. Probably he's never openly acknowledged it, and that's why I thought it was convenient to preserve that mystery. It's more easy for me not to keep that secret. Normally, I refer to Huck when I'm talking about something he's said at THF, and I refer to Teikemeier when I'm referring to something published on the website (trionfi.com). We're researching the birth years of people who existed centuries ago, and I don't know what year to include in Teikemeier's biography, which I assume was born somewhere in Germany. Well, I don't feel very Spanish myself. But there's a mystery, since I couldn't find that information about Teikemeier anywhere. I was trying to write a book in Spanish, but it's all very speculative about Tarot History. I'd also like to know what name of diffusion like to have some scholars in this forum, such as Robert and Stevem. There are many people in the world with this names. I accept to call them so that in my study notes when I mention some idea from them. I've already talked about this and I don't want to insist. Each person signs with the name they want. I like pseudonyms. The problem could be using names that are too common becouse it is confusing. I'm used to admitting these mysteries but I mention them because the subject has come up. Here we talk about the history of the tarot, but scholars are important for organizing the various theories. Finally, I believe Sylvia Mann wasn't born in Germany but in England, where she founded the Playing Card Association. I got confused about this because she published a few books in German. Tarot historians are part of the history of tarot.

Magic Moon wrote: 16 Jul 2025, 17:55 . I'd also like to know what name of diffusion like to have some scholars in this forum, such as Robert and Stevem.

SteveM = Stephen Mangan, aka, Kwaw93, Kwaw & Köy Deli.

Kwaw93 = my occult, Crowley fandom years; Kwaw from when I got into short-form poetry, like Haiku, years, still into literary/Crowley but not so much into the occult/Crowley (Kwaw was one of Crowley's pseudonyms, a character in his Konx Om Pax, also name under which he ran Haiku competitions when he was in USA during 1st WW years); Köy Deli from after I retired and moved to Turkey years (Köy = Turkish for Village, Deli = Turkish for Fool, crazy person).

ps: I am not a scholar, excepting perhaps in the most loose and amateurish & arm-chair reader pseudo sense, lol. Quite good at research but piss-poor critical & analytical skills (though improved a little over the years from interactions with the likes of Caldwell & Hurst). I would like to say I was skeptical, but I don't really have the intellect for that & cynical would be more honest.

Magic Moon wrote,

In the picture bottom we have the cards that I mentioned, found in Sevilla. I thought that it is made with only one thick cardboard. Right?

I don't know. I don't see any indication that a back sheet was folded over. I wish there were more written about the composition of these cards. I assume they are glued onto modern card-shaped pieces of heavy paper, so that you can't look at the back or the edges. Actually, my information is just about the luxury cards. Maybe they had to be stiffer, I don't know.

Magic Moon wrote,

I thought there were two theories. One was the archetypal deck theory, defended by Dummett, who considered the 21+1 structure to be consolidated around 1450 (not before). The other was the 5x14 theory, defended by Teikemeier. It seems there are several variants for both theories.

I don't know if Dummett put a date on when the 21+1 came into being. Do you have a reference? In the book with McLeod, he said second half of the 1430s for the pack, without any argument for why or specifying a number of trumps. In Il Mondo e l'Angelo, 1993, he proposed around 1430. In 1989 he allowed that there was a "real possibility" of 16 trumps in the Modrone. He also allowed for a period of instability, but I don't recall the exact word he used. Ross is quite emphatic that it was 21+1, I think by around 1437, with no consolidation period, just a "nonstandard" Modrone of 24 trumps. His argument in 2007 was that it had to be within 5 years of the first report, which then was 1442. He based that number on the frequency of reports after that time in all cities. Since 2007, the reports have greatly magnified, with what relevance to the issue at hand I cannot say, and the first report is 1440. "Phaeded" here insists that the deck was originally 14 triumphs, invented in 1440. Andrea proposes that it was invented by Prince Fibbia, who died in 1419 or 1421, and that as early as 1410 is reasonable for the invention, which was the earliest date that Decker, Depaulis, and Dummett thought possible in their 1996 book. Andrea thinks that at the beginning "there may have been only fourteen allegories" (Bologna & the Tarot, p. 2).

Huck hypothesizes 16 for the Modrone, including all 7 virtues. He has a web-page about it, I don't remember the url. If so, it seems to me the virtues would have been part of some Visconti or Sforza decks before the PMB. The PMB card he calls Fame looks very much like an altered Justice card; if the Modrone had all seven virtues, the only way the PMB could be without virtue cards is if they had deliberately been omitted, for a special game, as I have already indicated.

He hypothesizes 16 trumps for the Charles VI, too. I do not find 16 plausible. The Empress, for sure, would have been there, because it is in the "Alessandro Sforza," whose cards are very similar. Also, the PMB is close in time, with some cards not in Huck's Modrone (Pope, Hanged Man) but in the "Charles VI." So probably the Bagatto and the Wheel were, too, making 19, a rather odd number. Since the Moon and the Sun are there, the Star would make 20. I would have expected the Popess, too; the only cause for doubt is that the Emperor's number, as put on later, is 3, and no information otherwise about a Popess in Florence. Just plenty elsewhere. I'd think the Devil would have been there, for which there is other evidence in Florence.

I have my own hypothesis, that the game started with a Marziano-type grid. However, it is just a hypothesis. It seems to me as good as any other, so its main usefulness is to cast doubt on the certainty of other hypotheses. I would say no earlier than 1410, which is what Dummett, Depaulis, and Decker said in 1996. However, around 1430 seems to me more reasonable. I have no qualms about thinking that the Modrone's Love card might be modeled on a similar card in a deck commemorating Filippo's 1428 wedding, for instance.

About names: in a publication, I would say "Huck" if referring to a post on THF or Aeclectic, "autorbis" or "trionfi.com" for something on trionfi.com, depending on whether it is signed or not, but with "Lothar Teikemeier" in parentheses. For SteveM I would put "Stephen Mangan" in parentheses. For "Nathaniel", Nathaniel Shockley in parentheses. For others not otherwise identified, I would just use the avatar name, but in quotation marks. I am Michael S. Howard. I use the "S" because there are numerous Michael Howards.

Hello Stevephen Mangan, it's a pleasure to meet you again and read about your topics of interest. Thank you.

When I write "estudioso" (Spanish), I mean a person who studies, but the translator writes "scholar," and I had to accept it. It seems there's no word in English that actually matches the Spanish "estudioso," which is different from "estudiante" (learner). I will try to be attentive to see what English word you use for we in general or for researchers, some of which study more than they research.

******

Mikeh, thanks for explaining the theoretical variations of different scholars. I now recall that you considered the possibility of 16 triumphs for the Modrone, if I recall correctly, when you explained your structural tables for the Modrone. However, now you seem to favor a higher number of triumphs for the Modrone. This isn't a criticism; I'm simply trying to understand. I suppose you've changed your mind or are establishing two stages.

Regarding your name, "Michael S." I have a personal problem with initials. Initials generally feel uncomfortably mysterious to me and give me anxiety. I try to avoid using initials in personal names, or I just look up the full word. I'm guessing your name is Michael Simon or something like that—two first names before the last name. Great. Thanks. It's a good idea to differentiate yourself from others, Michael Howard. By the way, I've always found your last name to be magical and esoteric. I like it better than Hogwarts, which is related to a popular children's wizarding.

*******

Mikeh. I don't know where I read that Dummett dated the 21+1 structure to the 1450s. I thought that opinion made sense from his point of view, considering that Modrone has different virtues and PMB already has almost the conventional 22 cards, especially for those who think that the second commission was a replacement. From what you say, it seems that Dummett expressed different opinions on this throughout his life. That's normal. We all change our minds as we think and take into account new details. So I need to look up which book Dummett said that the 22-card allegorical structure was consolidated around 1450. That way I can see if I'm perhaps wrong.

*********

Mikeh. You talked about Rosenwald blade measurements a few days ago. I've been checking out your links. Thanks for that information. You mentioned it here:

viewtopic.php?p=27561&sid=5cad0b2479910 ... 9fc#p27561

In another thread, I mentioned the size of the Rosenwald sheets to try to resolve a doubt regarding the Cary Sheet:

viewtopic.php?p=27358#p27358

By the way, I don't remember finding any article by Pratesi on the Cary Sheet.

I want to comment on something regarding the measurements of the Rosenwald Sheets. We see that there are differences in the exact size of the sheets. I assume the measurements we know refer to the paper size, that is, the area printed with all card designs is a little smaller in each sheet. Very well. On the other hand, I think it's important to know if the cards are the same size. The paper size is interesting, but the size of the cards seems more important. I imagine the cards are the same size on the three Rosenwald sheets and on the damaged German sheet, whose paper is slightly smaller.

I don't know if at that time, paper was manufactured with an exact size that was identical in all sheets from the same manufacturer, or if there were variations depending on the sheet or certain groups of paper produced.

I remember someone in a thread on this forum talking about the size of sheets of paper at that time, in relation to the Rosenwald Sheets. That researcher said that the Rosenwald size is half the size that sheets of paper usually manufactured at that time were. This explains the difference in size on the short side of each Rosenwald sheet, which results from cutting the larger sheet in half, but in an inaccurate manner. However, we also see a slight variation in the size of the long side of some Rosenwald Sheets. This means that the full sheet wasn't always a precise size, but rather there were variations. It would be good to find that researcher's post on this forum, because perhaps he mentioned the size of the full sheets at that time. I can try a search with English words to see if I'm lucky and find that post.

About scempi cards:

Mikeh wrote:
"I don't know. I don't see any indication that a back sheet was folded over. I wish there were more written about the composition of these cards. I assume they are glued onto modern card-shaped pieces of heavy paper, so that you can't look at the back or the edges. Actually, my information is just about the luxury cards. Maybe they had to be stiffer, I don't know".

I have personally seen these cards (found in Seville) that are in the Fournier Museum in Vitoria (Spain). They give the impression that it is a single, medium-thick piece of cardboard. Some areas of the edge are white, so I asked the museum employees. They gave me a vague and unhelpful answer. So I wrote an email. They told me they would get back to me later. I waited. They didn't write back. I asked them again. After a few months, they told me that the cardboard of these cards is original except for the fact that it has paper inserts added to the edges to reconstruct the material that had worn away. Indeed, these cards do not have rivoltini (folding at the edges). I believe they had white, unprinted backs. The rivoltini technique was widespread in Florence and Bologna, but it wasn't the only manufacturing system. The simplest system for making cheap decks is to print on single cards. The double-sided paper with printed backs is a magnificent Italian innovation of the 15th century. I've seen very old German cards that are similar to those found in Seville. I think a single cardstock was common in many old, cheap, industrially produced decks printed using woodcut. For example, Spanish cards never had rivoltini. I think the scempi cards could have been made of a single cardstock. Scempi cards weren't luxury cards. Scempi cards were cheap. That's why I didn't quite understand Pratesi's reasoning.

Anyway, there are several theories for scempi cards versus doppi cards. I hope the difference between a double deck and a double card has been understood. The theory about thickness refers to the fact that a cardstock could be more or less thick. I suppose papers were manufactured with different thicknesses. Another method is to glue several papers together, as in some luxury decks that are preserved. For example, the Alessandro Sforza deck.

The single-card cards could be called scampi because they are simple cards, but I don't know if they can be called scempi because they are single cards. This is my doubt about that hypothesis.


About naibi fini:

Pratesi talks about the term "naibi fini" but I don't quite understand how that manufacturing method arose. I imagine that some quality decks were made with thick, rigid cardboard. So, I imagine that "naibi fini" (thin or thin) cards were more resistant than thin paper. That is, they were as strong as thick cardboard but almost as thin as paper or thin cardstock, which allowed them to be flexible. I don't know if "naibi fini" had several layers of paper glued together. Perhaps, early in Florence, fini cards had printed backs glued with rivoltini along the edges. Pratesi says that naibi fini were of higher quality, but it seems he interprets that characteristic (fini) as a luxurious graphic finish.

A few decades ago, it was still common to see the expression "naipes finos" (fine playing cards) on Spanish decks. I always thought that expression referred to the thickness or flexibility of the cardstock. Perhaps I'm wrong, and he's referring to the fact that the illustrations are painted with a high and fine graphic quality. The Spanish word "fino" refers to a thin material (not very thick) and also to something elegant, delicate, and with a subtle pattern. I think that Pratesi's explanation of naibi fini is possibly too imprecise or even wrong. I mean that possibly naibi fini refers to the thickness or quality of the paper or cardboard of the naibi. It is also possible that naibi fini refers to the smooth surface of the cardboard, which makes the print look more beautiful.

Pratesi about atributes:
http://trionfi.com/naibi-doppi-scempi

Well presented. There is one important translation error (I assume Google Translate) that needs to be corrected: you have ""naibi fini" (thin or thin)". What is the other word in English (or Italian) translated as the second "thin"? "Fine"?

Hi Mikeh

I think the words I wrote in Spanish inside those parentheses were: "finos o delgados". Both refers to a thin object (small thickness). There are several words in English to refer to something "fino". Some refer to a thin object but others refer to something slender or beautiful. The word "finos" (italian: fini) have both meanings but "delgado" (thin) is only about small thickness. Some words in english: thin, slim, slender, fine, delicate, lightweight, high-quality paper, thick cards, premium cards, cardstock, high-grade.

(Yesterday I wrote two posts)