Hi Melissa, thanks for making this video. I purchased the 1909 Art Restoration Deck last week - it has not arrived yet. I only wanted 1 RWS study deck and I compared this deck with the MPC Study Deck and I decided on the 1909 Art Restoration Deck because of the line weights, colours and borders. Before making the decision I went through the Roses & Lilies (Dec. 1909) page on the Waite Smith website: waitesmith.org/index.php/decks/rider-roses-lilies-deck-1909/ The 1909 Art Restoration Deck looks to be a very close reproduction to the original 1909 deck including the borders on the cards. I will just have to wait until I receive the deck on whether it lives up to my expectations and if I like the card stock. I am glad that you have put this deck on other people's radar. Kind regards, Kenneth
Melissa, thanks for sharing this. I was going to ask you for an ordering link, but...found it, ordered it! I like the look of these, from what I can see, much better than the darker Study Deck. I'm also hoping I like the feel of the card stock as I wasn't happy with the Pam's Original.
Yeah, if the study deck bothers you, this should be a great alternate. I didn't even think of putting an ordering link into my description...fixed that! Thanks for the reminder!
@@melissazupan6026 I'm hoping this will take the place of my Centennial deck, as its source is even earlier and more authentic, plus no copyright, and still looks to have an aged look. The look of the cardstock appealed to me with the slight lamination. I'll just have to see and handle it. Is it anywhere near the look/feel of the MPC S30 stock? You know that's my favorite.
I'm happy to see your review. As "vintage" style RWS decks go, this one is very thoughtful. Still, this one had me wishing for the letter offering a trade-in for better cardstock!😜 Thank you!
A few noted: * The undulating line in the sun card is not original art. I don't recall the source at the moment, but somebody dropped a tool on the plate, which caused a crack. Making a whole new plate was a lot of work, so they extended it into the undulating line. I wish it was photoshopped out. * Later editions have tighter borders, cutting out some details. E.g. half the fish on the left side of the king of cups is gone. * Later editions have some color problems as well, e.g. the shoes of the man in the seven of pentacles are of identical color in the 1909 edition, and different shades in later editions. * Generally, the 1909 is just higher quality - finer lines and better colors overall.
Ugh, I know!!! I've looked everywhere I know to look to see if I could find the deck on a site better suited to non-North Americans. Alas, no go. I wish I knew how to get in touch with C.
Yes! I need that deck 😍 in my opinion Drivethrucards has the best cardstock for riffle shuffling i love that cardstock but they cut the cards poorly as you have said. i had a disappointing experience with them when i ordered 3 decks of Pam's original art only 😔 they came bad cuted. I hope they corrected that issue.
Hi. Thank you for this. Have you done a comparison between this 1909 by C in London with the AE Waite by AG Müller? If so can you direct me to it? I can't find it in your list. I'm interested to know how they compare. (Besides the font which was regrettably changed by AGM.) Thank you~ Marilyn
hi Melissa, is there any way you could describe the cardstock of the "1909" deck printed by drivethrucards? does it feel as "cardboardy" as the centennial deck from US games? do the cards have a good sheen to it? do the cards feel smooth to the touch or rather "dry-matte" similar to the "study deck" from makeplayingcards? how to the cards riffle / bridge shuffle? as I really like the centennial for the look of the cards, but find the cardstock of the centennial too cardboardy, stiff and the cards simply don't feel good while holding them in my hands, I was looking for a deck that looks similar but feels much smoother to the touch with a nice sheen to it, without looking glossy. so I was wondering if the "1909" was the one to go for (the "study deck" feels much much better (to the touch) than the centennial, however feels a little too "matte" for my taste..) thank you very much for a reply :)
Hello everyone! Has someone actually used this deck continuously? Is it lasting? I bought a deck from another printer but the edges have begun to damage/ruin after some shuffling… what a pity and a waste of money! Thanks 😊
It has been my experience that any paper deck used heavily will soon start wearing. I don’t use 1909 every day, but it is frequently in my rotation, and it is holding up very well so far.
They're actually very different. This deck is based off the 1909 Roses and Lilies deck. This has very much been identified as the first Rider deck to have been printed, thanks to dates on accompanying materials. The deck that Llewellyn (actually Lo Scarabeo) has coming out, the Tarot Original 1909 is actually the LAST of the original Rider decks, the Pam B. Pam B was printed in the 1930s. The man who owns Lo Scarabeo, Pietro Alligo, believes the Pam B to have been the first deck. He published a whole article about it in like 2002 or so. Saskia Jansen (truelighth) has a nice post where she questions his argument here: www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=195091
Thanks for the timeline about the various issues of the deck. I've always wondered how the awful 'Original Rider Waite' deck that was released around 1993 by US Games Systems fit in. The colors were splotchy and the line work was poor (as seen in the face of The Fool for example). So would that have been a 'Pam B' or 'Pam C'? And to be clear, the 'Pam D' version went back to the nicer 'Pam A' - is that right?
Fabulous review and run through of the publication history. Thanks as ever, M! ❤️❤️
Thank you!!
I’m so happy I found this video, it’s the first time I feel some understanding of how all the different Pam versions came about. Thank you!
I really enjoyed your attention to detail with this walkthrough, betcha you can't guess what is coming to a mail box near me :)
Yet another RWS that I have to have! Thanks for sharing!! 😁
Mwah-ha-ha...my work here is done.
Hi Melissa, thanks for making this video. I purchased the 1909 Art Restoration Deck last week - it has not arrived yet. I only wanted 1 RWS study deck and I compared this deck with the MPC Study Deck and I decided on the 1909 Art Restoration Deck because of the line weights, colours and borders. Before making the decision I went through the Roses & Lilies (Dec. 1909) page on the Waite Smith website: waitesmith.org/index.php/decks/rider-roses-lilies-deck-1909/
The 1909 Art Restoration Deck looks to be a very close reproduction to the original 1909 deck including the borders on the cards. I will just have to wait until I receive the deck on whether it lives up to my expectations and if I like the card stock. I am glad that you have put this deck on other people's radar. Kind regards, Kenneth
I hope you like it!
Wow Melissa thanks for sharing this beaut💚
No prob! I looked everywhere for a walk through or other images when I got this and couldn't seem to find any...so obviously I had to share. :)
Thank you for walking through the chronology of the printing! I never understood all the letters and timeline 😂
Melissa, thanks for sharing this. I was going to ask you for an ordering link, but...found it, ordered it! I like the look of these, from what I can see, much better than the darker Study Deck. I'm also hoping I like the feel of the card stock as I wasn't happy with the Pam's Original.
Yeah, if the study deck bothers you, this should be a great alternate. I didn't even think of putting an ordering link into my description...fixed that! Thanks for the reminder!
@@melissazupan6026 I'm hoping this will take the place of my Centennial deck, as its source is even earlier and more authentic, plus no copyright, and still looks to have an aged look. The look of the cardstock appealed to me with the slight lamination. I'll just have to see and handle it. Is it anywhere near the look/feel of the MPC S30 stock? You know that's my favorite.
This is cool!!! Thanks for sharing!
Thanks!! I'm glad you liked it. It really is a lovely RWS. (Well, borders and meh cardstock excepted.)
I'm happy to see your review. As "vintage" style RWS decks go, this one is very thoughtful. Still, this one had me wishing for the letter offering a trade-in for better cardstock!😜 Thank you!
LOL! That would be hysterical. I really do hope C in London does find a better printer.
A few noted:
* The undulating line in the sun card is not original art. I don't recall the source at the moment, but somebody dropped a tool on the plate, which caused a crack. Making a whole new plate was a lot of work, so they extended it into the undulating line. I wish it was photoshopped out.
* Later editions have tighter borders, cutting out some details. E.g. half the fish on the left side of the king of cups is gone.
* Later editions have some color problems as well, e.g. the shoes of the man in the seven of pentacles are of identical color in the 1909 edition, and different shades in later editions.
* Generally, the 1909 is just higher quality - finer lines and better colors overall.
C in London, so why can I only buy from the States? I do want this 😩😭
Ugh, I know!!! I've looked everywhere I know to look to see if I could find the deck on a site better suited to non-North Americans. Alas, no go. I wish I knew how to get in touch with C.
Yes! I need that deck 😍 in my opinion Drivethrucards has the best cardstock for riffle shuffling i love that cardstock but they cut the cards poorly as you have said. i had a disappointing experience with them when i ordered 3 decks of Pam's original art only 😔 they came bad cuted. I hope they corrected that issue.
Thank you!!
Hi. Thank you for this. Have you done a comparison between this 1909 by C in London with the AE Waite by AG Müller? If so can you direct me to it? I can't find it in your list. I'm interested to know how they compare. (Besides the font which was regrettably changed by AGM.) Thank you~ Marilyn
hi Melissa, is there any way you could describe the cardstock of the "1909" deck printed by drivethrucards? does it feel as "cardboardy" as the centennial deck from US games? do the cards have a good sheen to it? do the cards feel smooth to the touch or rather "dry-matte" similar to the "study deck" from makeplayingcards? how to the cards riffle / bridge shuffle?
as I really like the centennial for the look of the cards, but find the cardstock of the centennial too cardboardy, stiff and the cards simply don't feel good while holding them in my hands, I was looking for a deck that looks similar but feels much smoother to the touch with a nice sheen to it, without looking glossy. so I was wondering if the "1909" was the one to go for (the "study deck" feels much much better (to the touch) than the centennial, however feels a little too "matte" for my taste..) thank you very much for a reply :)
Any link to where to buy this Restoration Deck, Melissa? Thanks for this informative video. Anne
Just updated the video description with a direct link!
Hello everyone! Has someone actually used this deck continuously? Is it lasting? I bought a deck from another printer but the edges have begun to damage/ruin after some shuffling… what a pity and a waste of money! Thanks 😊
It has been my experience that any paper deck used heavily will soon start wearing. I don’t use 1909 every day, but it is frequently in my rotation, and it is holding up very well so far.
Mess=bookmarker YAY! 🤣👍🏾
I'm confused. What is the difference between this deck and the 1909 deck Llewellyn has coming out this year? They look identical.
They're actually very different. This deck is based off the 1909 Roses and Lilies deck. This has very much been identified as the first Rider deck to have been printed, thanks to dates on accompanying materials. The deck that Llewellyn (actually Lo Scarabeo) has coming out, the Tarot Original 1909 is actually the LAST of the original Rider decks, the Pam B. Pam B was printed in the 1930s. The man who owns Lo Scarabeo, Pietro Alligo, believes the Pam B to have been the first deck. He published a whole article about it in like 2002 or so. Saskia Jansen (truelighth) has a nice post where she questions his argument here:
www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=195091
Thanks for the timeline about the various issues of the deck. I've always wondered how the awful 'Original Rider Waite' deck that was released around 1993 by US Games Systems fit in. The colors were splotchy and the line work was poor (as seen in the face of The Fool for example). So would that have been a 'Pam B' or 'Pam C'? And to be clear, the 'Pam D' version went back to the nicer 'Pam A' - is that right?
Oh, sorry. I went to Drive Thru Cards and got it.
Awesome!