I currently read exclusively with the Jean Noblet Tarot de Marseille. It's just so darned honest, bawdy and irreverent. It's the "no BS" deck!
The Noblet is not for everyone, though. If you'd like a "cuddlier" deck, I think the Tarot de Marseille by Spanish publisher Fournier might be just the ticket. The lines of the Fournier follow those of the Nicholas Conver Marseille, so it reads like the originals (unless you find the original coloring to be important in reading), but it has contemporary coloring, giving a different feel. It is the deck that I started reading with when I began my study of Marseilles.
The two cards shown here are The Hermit from the Jean Noblet then from the Fournier.
If you read with the Minor Arcana, you may find the fact that each suit has a different background color to be useful. Some people have pointed out that the intensity of the coloring can be a little inconsistent, but I have not found that to be a problem.
There do seems to be a few editions of this deck available. There's even a mini version, although some have commented that some of the resizing may not have been done proportionally, leading to some distortion (I read that the coins are not perfectly round, for example).
You can see images of the entire deck here.
This deck is available at Tarot Garden or in Europe from Alida.
7 comments:
I decided to get a Marseille deck for an important anniversary two years ago and grew to like it. The one I have is not popular, it's the Il Menghello Classico Tarocco di Marsiglia, which has an odd plastic lamination, but I loved the Hermit and colours and shapes so kept it.
I am more likely to buy different playing cards with pips than Marseille decks, but the Jean Noblet does sound very interesting. I enjoyed seeing your comparison with the "cuddlier" Fournier which I don't like at all! I'm a fan of simpler line drawings.
If you like the simpler line drawings, I would definitely recommend the Jean Noblet!
It took me a while to find the Classico Tarocco di Marsiglia
Ah, that Marsiglia you are linking to is the "other" version. The one I have has a parchment background and brighter colours and the plastic laminate. Weird grey and white blobby backs too.
I had the more elegant one, also an Il Meneghello deck, but traded it. I liked the brighter colours of the deck no one likes. It's a bit confusing with the 2 editions.
I'd get the Noblet in a heartbeat if I could buy it in Canada, but I don't want to order from the States as the extras fees are way too much.
Is this it?
Judging by this discussion I found on the Aeclectic Tarot forums, I think the link I included earlier is the same deck, but is a bad scan.
I have friends in Canada who do some traveling back and forth. I wonder if we could work something out? Please feel free to get in touch with me directly.
Yes, that's it. I ordered it by mistake because I got the two versions mixed up, and thought I'd hate it, but when I got the "good" version, I actually liked this odd little fellow better even with the bright colours and lamination.
I don't know why, maybe I felt sorry because it was the unpopular one.
Thanks for the offer to get the Noblet to me, but I'll wait a bit.
Hi Foucault,
The Fournier was my first Marseille as well and I still love it, although I have the Hadar, Heron, Conver, Convos, Burdell and Noblet now.
I haven't read with the Noblet yet but you are tempting me to have another look.
I think the Hadar would be my favourite.
I 'met' you on Mary Greer's blog and like your web page incidentally.
Freesparrow
Best wishes
Freesparrow - thanks for your comments. I do still have a soft spot for the Fournier, and I would read using that deck if someone had strong feelings against me using the Noblet with them.
But the Noblet, for the reasons given in my main post, is by far my preferred deck. It gives me the kind of results that I want to see in a no-nonsense style that fits with my outlook on life.
If you are curious about reading with the Noblet, I would recommend Enrique Enriquez's e-book Looking at the Marseilles Tarot: Notes on Tarot's Optical Language. I reviewed it here a while ago.
Your post on Mary's blog was very thought-provoking to me. Have you seen subsequent comments there? You and Mary made me realize that there is something missing from my materials: a short simple statement that sums up my approach. Thanks for that.
Post a Comment