What a wonderful comparison, Melissa! Thank you for sharing! I personally love both of those RWS reproductions! I adore the sharpness of A.E.Waite, only if AGM were allowed to use Pixie's original calligraphy! I love tins, too! I need to figure out how to design them from the MPC!
Yeah, I really hate tuckboxes. :) I do keep them for some decks, but for ones I do actually pull out and use at least semi-regularly, they're getting tin homes. I don't want to avoid using a deck because a part of me is worried I'll destroy the packaging.
Great comparison, exactly what I was looking for - Thank you Melissa! I'm still wondering about the cardstock though: I have the Centennial and love the thick, sturdy cardstock. Would you say the A.E. Waite is thinner/flimsier? Oh, by the way, if we want to be really nerdy we'd have to point out that the Centennial is actually based on the 1909 "Pam A Roses & Lilies" - the earliest version. I recently learned this from Dusty White. You can tell the difference in The Magician in the lower left corner: the 1910 Pam-A is a little cut off on the lefthand side, while the Roses & Lilies shows a little bit more of the card. (sorry, don't mean to be a smartass, I just find it very fascinating, totally geeking out on it, haha 😅)
Huh! Good to know! I'll have to whip out my Centennial and my A and R&L references and do some close inspection. The A.E. Waite cardstock definitely isn't as thick as Centennial. It feels about the same as other standard AGM decks. I guess a bit like the USG Radiant or Universal Waites.
@@melissazupan6026 Thanks a lot! I've got the Universal Waite, so now I've got an idea (been thinking about getting the A.E. Waite but was afraid of horrible cardstock). 🙂
I feel the same way about tuck boxes and I LOVE that tin! I like both of these for different reasons. Do you know if the regular sized Centennial is exactly the same as the smaller 'in a tin' size version? The little one is the only one I have and I'm wondering if I need the regular sized one. What's the difference, if any, other than its size?
I really enjoy the size of standard-sized tarot cards, so I've never purchased the "in a tin" versions. I understand that the tin version is supposed to just be a scaled down version of this deck. There may be some color differences due to condensing pixels (usually makes things a bit darker) or to machine calibration, but I can't speak to that first hand.
The star looks really bad and mine has exactly the same issue. The color printer they used is not properly aligned and the colors are offset compared to the black lines of the drawing. See how the blue sky leaks into the star. Argh...
I like sharpness and details. Im going to buy the AGM version!
Thanks for helping me to decide.
What a wonderful comparison, Melissa! Thank you for sharing! I personally love both of those RWS reproductions! I adore the sharpness of A.E.Waite, only if AGM were allowed to use Pixie's original calligraphy!
I love tins, too! I need to figure out how to design them from the MPC!
Hi where can one find the rider waite smith study deck?
Yaay, putting the Centennial next to the Study Deck was what I was about to ask for. Oh my, you created a tin for this too!
Yeah, I really hate tuckboxes. :) I do keep them for some decks, but for ones I do actually pull out and use at least semi-regularly, they're getting tin homes. I don't want to avoid using a deck because a part of me is worried I'll destroy the packaging.
Great comparison, exactly what I was looking for - Thank you Melissa! I'm still wondering about the cardstock though: I have the Centennial and love the thick, sturdy cardstock. Would you say the A.E. Waite is thinner/flimsier?
Oh, by the way, if we want to be really nerdy we'd have to point out that the Centennial is actually based on the 1909 "Pam A Roses & Lilies" - the earliest version. I recently learned this from Dusty White. You can tell the difference in The Magician in the lower left corner: the 1910 Pam-A is a little cut off on the lefthand side, while the Roses & Lilies shows a little bit more of the card.
(sorry, don't mean to be a smartass, I just find it very fascinating, totally geeking out on it, haha 😅)
Huh! Good to know! I'll have to whip out my Centennial and my A and R&L references and do some close inspection.
The A.E. Waite cardstock definitely isn't as thick as Centennial. It feels about the same as other standard AGM decks. I guess a bit like the USG Radiant or Universal Waites.
@@melissazupan6026 Thanks a lot! I've got the Universal Waite, so now I've got an idea (been thinking about getting the A.E. Waite but was afraid of horrible cardstock). 🙂
I feel the same way about tuck boxes and I LOVE that tin! I like both of these for different reasons. Do you know if the regular sized Centennial is exactly the same as the smaller 'in a tin' size version? The little one is the only one I have and I'm wondering if I need the regular sized one. What's the difference, if any, other than its size?
I really enjoy the size of standard-sized tarot cards, so I've never purchased the "in a tin" versions. I understand that the tin version is supposed to just be a scaled down version of this deck. There may be some color differences due to condensing pixels (usually makes things a bit darker) or to machine calibration, but I can't speak to that first hand.
Thank you 🙏🏾
Thanks for sharing.
The star looks really bad and mine has exactly the same issue. The color printer they used is not properly aligned and the colors are offset compared to the black lines of the drawing. See how the blue sky leaks into the star. Argh...