What parameters do you follow for buying a deck?

[uscss.Nostromo]

My rampant collecting days were over years ago and I've only recently "come back on the scene" again so to speak.
My old collection is no more and now I've started a new collection of both old and new titles.

My parameters are quite simple:

1. the artwork must be evocative and compelling.

2. I have to be able to read with the deck.

3. If I cannot read with it, the title must at least have significant historical importance such as the 2017 restoration of the Mantegna by Il Meneghello or the Cary-Yale Visconti di Modrone U.S. Games 2017, etc.
The aforementioned decks are rather unwieldy, although one could in theory read with them; I'm sure some people do.

and that's it.

I see pictures of old titles I used to own, extremely fine contemporary artistic editions; some in fact are actually "too fine" to be considered practical for actual readings. Besides, even if any of these rare editions were to come up for sale on todays market, the price would be absolutely horrendous.

So, what are your guidelines?

[Joan Marie]

I can't say I have any guidelines per se, and I admit to not being the collector that many people around here are, but my recent efforts at posting recently published decks on our deck list has really inspired me to pursue newer work. The modern (and I mean published within the last 2-3 years) decks are not all my cup of tea, but there are just so many to choose from, so many different artists and artistic interpretations of the Tarot. I find myself falling in love all over the place.

I also think it's important and fun to support the new voices in deck creation, and the old voices making new things.

That said, I do have to be selective and choose the artwork that really speaks to me, surprises me and is many layered, not necessarily literally layered, but images that lend themselves to various interpretations. Like Mona Lisa's smile.

[CharlotteK]

I have bought dozens of beautiful decks in the last few years after falling for them and believing I just had to have them. Then I found I just couldn't read very well with them and/or didn't really want to. The best kind of artwork for me is filled with a myriad of possibilities, intrigues me, challenges me and works on lots of different levels. The best decks genuinely spark something in the storytelling part of my brain. Some wonderful looking decks just stare back at me, handsome but blank.

But I do also like the exquisite and historically important like the restorations from Yves Renaud and Il Menenghello.

I still have plenty of decks that don't do so much for me but I have sold so very many for less than I paid for them I'm happy to hang onto them whilst I have space and you never know, I might come to love them.

[uscss.Nostromo]

like CharlotteK I too used to own decks that weren't especially suited for reading, although the fact is that at the time I was more into (serious) collecting than reading which accounts for that particular issue.

I suspect that many people who have mile long lists of decks do in fact see the "myriad possibilities" and nuances in the artwork as well as the wonderful "story telling" qualities of any particular deck, hence the size of some of these collections.

I know all too well that it's easy to recognize the inherent beauty of the artists vision and become entranced by it which can be a very costly seduction of sorts.

Nowadays I look very long and hard at every deck before I even consider a purchase, I suppose that is one of the benefits of hindsight, having experienced the collecting fever and recollections of so many titles. Now I can be much more sanguine about walking away from any deck without a hint of regret.
And if there are some (actually quite a number) of now OOP decks that I previously missed out on, too bad, I can shrug it off.

That's a very liberating feeling.

[CharlotteK]

And if there are some (actually quite a number) of now OOP decks that I previously missed out on, too bad, I can shrug it off.
That's a very liberating feeling.

I agree. The 'fear of missing out' drove me to buy expensive decks I didn't use and to stalk and pay a lot of money for some rare OOP decks. Collecting in the end, bizarrely, made me feel very anxious, so I stopped. Deciding to concentrate on very usable decks that resonate the most has been liberating. I still make occasional impulsive purchases I regret a little but I'm definitely much more selective.

[BlueStar]

My one big guideline for buying a deck is do I like the imagery? Does the artwork appeal to me? If not then I won't be able to work with the deck.

[Tomatosauce]

I'm still kind of developing mine- what I'm finding is that the more detailed the art is, the better I connect with it. For example, I recently bought the Kaleidadope Tarot, which I like and enjoy as an expression of the artist's perspective, but the pictures are intentionally very simple, and I just don't find as much to draw on when I read with it. Nonetheless, I keep trying because I think the exercise is beneficial. I also find that I like a contemporary art style better than historic decks- I just resonate with it better. (That said, I'm also delighted by decks that riff very specifically on the Smith-Waite art: Tarot of the New Vision, Lisa Sterle's upcoming Modern Witch Tarot.)

But, particularly in choosing what to support with my money, I also try to choose my decks in accordance with my politics- I seek out decks by creators of color, or Queer folx, or women, and decks that represent a broad diversity of humanity (and don't lazily fall into making the one black woman in the deck the Strength card). I love decks that make the tarot as inclusive as possible- I've never particularly cared for the influence of initiatory esoteric traditions on tarot- I resonate more with folk magic and divination- the ad-hoc stuff people did with what they had at hand as a way to claw back some control in a hostile and unpredictable world. (No disrespect to people who love the esoteric stuff; I'm just more about the magic of the kitchen fire than the stone altar.)

[Nemia]

I agree with what everybody said - have to add two parameters of my own.

It's strange - my job is art, and I appreciate good art in a tarot deck and in my collecting days, bought decks whose art impressed me. But but but. If I want to define what makes me WANT a deck I find that I can't define it. It's the famous TINGLE that I have when I see a deck. And for that, the art doesn't have to be first rate. A tarot deck is more than a work of art - it also has a function. And if I see a deck that looks as though it fulfilled that function well - it's a candidate for me (That's why I dislike decks that feature simply works of art.)

If the art is good, great. If it looks like a deck with narrative potential, great. If it's an intelligent and creative new take on esoteric lore, great. If it touches my obsessions (stars!), great.

But there are lots of decks that tick all the right boxes but leave me cold. And others give me that tingle. And that's my first parameter, irrational and even obnoxious because it made me buy too many decks.

There were a few decks that I let go because I couldn't add them to my collection, they made me deeply uncomfortable. But not many. I'm a completionist, I confess. And that's my second parameter. I never bought a Steampunk deck because I knew I'd have to buy all of them. Once a sub-collection takes shape, I get this feeling of "inner restlessness" and add it to my list. If I buy the Byzantine, I also need the Golden Tsar and the Cathar, and then I can compare........... and that's simply fun.

Isn't that horrible? Buying decks because of an irrational tingle and because it would fit into the collection so neatly!

[Sinister]

For my taste, I want the card titles in a Tarot deck to follow one of the older traditions. So, either Batons, Wands, Rods etc. is fine, but calling it 'Electric Poles' or something is offputting to me! And, I want - for example - The Devil to be The Devil (or El Diablo, or Le Diable etc) and not renamed and reimagined as something completely different. There's a deck where the equivalent of The Devil card is 'The Siren', to fit the specific theme of the art. I like the artwork of it, but renaming such an important card doesn't really work for me.

[Amoroso]

It must showcase art that I find appealing, have an interesting theme, and have a sturdy system. I like decks with lots of esoteric detail or with comprehensive companion books, but these are not mandatory.

[uscss.Nostromo]

It's interesting to read posts by Sinister and Amaroso; these are essentially "old school" ideals which is perfectly fine, no argument here.

I might add that in keeping with this line of thought the necessity of a companion book is a moot point.
One might even say that you should be able to simply purchase a deck and read with it instantly without having to resort to "learning a new system" devised by the artist.

Introducing new elements can be problematic as Sinister points out. For some or many people a single card can be a deal breaker, whether it be the artistic depiction or title.

Attempting to devise a whole new system can be viewed as contrived and without any merit as is often the case.

This is also related to the thread "Pearls of Wisdom III" and my own ongoing debate about the veracity of the Tarot-D/Didactic Tarot.

[jaq]

Like for anyone else, the artwork needs to speak to me. I am also in a lull re buying decks (I have about 65) because I don't want to have decks that I don't want to or have time to read with. Fortunately I've ended up with only a few that don't do much for me. I also go in for variety - I really don't need 30 RWS clones. The more unusual, the better. That's why I got attracted to the Cult of Tarot.

[Sinister]

It's interesting to read posts by Sinister and Amaroso; these are essentially "old school" ideals which is perfectly fine, no argument here.

I might add that in keeping with this line of thought the necessity of a companion book is a moot point.
One might even say that you should be able to simply purchase a deck and read with it instantly without having to resort to "learning a new system" devised by the artist.

Introducing new elements can be problematic as Sinister points out. For some or many people a single card can be a deal breaker, whether it be the artistic depiction or title.

Attempting to devise a whole new system can be viewed as contrived and without any merit as is often the case.

This is also related to the thread "Pearls of Wisdom III" and my own ongoing debate about the veracity of the Tarot-D/Didactic Tarot.

Well said, and thanks for the comment. I agree of course, though would add that I make an exception for reproductions of very old decks such as the Minchiate, and the Mitelli, both of which are very interesting and aesthetically appealing to me. Although the Minchiate has 97 cards and the Mitelli has 62 cards, and there are some different cards and so on, I feel differently about them due to their historical significance.

[uscss.Nostromo]

Well said, and thanks for the comment. I agree of course, though would add that I make an exception for reproductions of very old decks such as the Minchiate, and the Mitelli, both of which are very interesting and aesthetically appealing to me. Although the Minchiate has 97 cards and the Mitelli has 62 cards, and there are some different cards and so on, I feel differently about them due to their historical significance.

Absolutely without a doubt, the Minchiate and Mitelli are exceptions, in fact I can't imagine anybody viewing either of these decks as problematic, but of course some do.

In the same vein of thought I've decided against the Didactic; frankly if you have to think that long and hard about a deck then it's simply not worth it.

[uscss.Nostromo]

Like for anyone else, the artwork needs to speak to me. I am also in a lull re buying decks (I have about 65) because I don't want to have decks that I don't want to or have time to read with. Fortunately I've ended up with only a few that don't do much for me. I also go in for variety - I really don't need 30 RWS clones. The more unusual, the better. That's why I got attracted to the Cult of Tarot.

I suspect one may find more (compelling) diversity within the Thoth family of Tarot decks; I suspect this although I don't know for certain.

Yes there are a lot of RWS clones and I won't buy a lot of decks simply because of this fact; especially if the artistic merit is wanting.

I do like the emersion of a number of what I like to call hybrid decks, Tarot decks that straddle the varies schools of RWS, Marseilles, Thoth; decks that incorporate Wirth imagery within an RWS etc. Often a seriously good artist can accomplish this incorporation of multiple elements simply by virtue of their talent and without any conscience knowledge of having done so.

Those are the decks that really stand out for me. I've also found that many artists tend to flounder when they get past the Majors and begin laboring over the Minor Arcana. I'll take an outstanding Majors-only deck any day over a mediocre 78 card deck.

[jaq]

Yeah, and different people have different ideas about what's a Thoth deck. I once got my knuckles wrapped in a Thoth reading circle for using a deck (forgot which one - Miller's Universal maybe?) that wasn't Thoth enough.

Yes, I like a lot of decks that stretch interpretations really far. The Karma Tarot comes to mind, or the Celtic Faeries.

I don't like reading without the minors, so I don't have any majors only decks, although there are some really beautiful majors only out there, like Narciso's Tarot ng Daigdig sa Balintataw.

[uscss.Nostromo]

Yeah, and different people have different ideas about what's a Thoth deck. I once got my knuckles wrapped in a Thoth reading circle for using a deck (forgot which one - Miller's Universal maybe?) that wasn't Thoth enough.

Yes, I like a lot of decks that stretch interpretations really far. The Karma Tarot comes to mind, or the Celtic Faeries.

I don't like reading without the minors, so I don't have any majors only decks, although there are some really beautiful majors only out there, like Narciso's Tarot ng Daigdig sa Balintataw.

Narciso is an incredibly talented artist. It's amazing how one artist can be so prolific and display such a wide range of styles.
I have his Tarocchi di Marcelo Inciso and I also have an eye on his Eventide Tarot which is essentially RWS but the Eventide might not retail out of the USA, he said he might sell it on his Etsy website out of Hong Kong and the shipping charges are kind of outrageous.

I might have to think twice about that one, besides he's not even finished the deck; although I have to admit that aesthetically the Eventide is very compelling for me.

Getting your knuckles rapped is a common occurrence on many of these reading forums unfortunately, that must have been on the old AT forum, sounds typical.

[Joan Marie]

... although there are some really beautiful majors only out there, like Narciso's Tarot ng Daigdig sa Balintataw.

Narciso is an incredibly talented artist. It's amazing how one artist can be so prolific and display such a wide range of styles.

I love his work. I did an interview with Lynyrd-Jym Narciso of Paraluman Studios.

It's in the Interviews: Meet the Card Creators section of this forum.

Here is the direct link: Paraluman Studio - The Unstoppable Deck Creator

[Anesidora]

My only parameters are whether I can read with it and whether I like the artwork. Otherwise, anything is fair game

[archimedes]

RWS/Thoth system. Consistent quality through the deck. Art that appeals to my taste - not too weird, and that evidences some skill and understanding of colour and light sources. My tastes can be quite broad otherwise.

Check for dealbreaker cards - disturbing violence, childbirth. Not fond of decks that look like the models are from *ahem* gentleman's magazines.

Good quality cardstock.

[fire cat pickles]

This is an interesting question. Pardon the breakdown, but I have Virgo in the 2nd House!

What I look for in a deck, before I buy it, (and I usually wait a long time before I will buy a deck, and after giving it a lot of thought...) is:

1. Uniqueness... Is it an usual deck? Does it have any other decks that are anything like it? Is it "just" a clone, or does it follow its own system?

2. Collectability... Will it be worth it in the long run to buy this deck? I look at getting a deck as an investment on some level. I guess you can call it an occupational hazard as a collector.

3. Readability... Can I actually read with this deck? If it is unreadable, I will definitely not buy it.

4. Artistry... Of course, the artwork has to be spot on. This doesn't really apply to repro decks, but it does apply to restored historical decks.

Any one of these four may interest me in buying a deck. It all depends on the degree that each one parameter reaches. Of course, if there is one deck that touches a little on each of the points above, it may make it to my list

[AstralPasta]

I'm still new at collecting I suppose. I'm pretty stringent so far on the sort of decks I like. I remember posting a thread here early on and folks helped me out (archimedes just replied to it actually hehe, hopefully I remember to give an update there)

So....I have strong preferences and I'll also make exceptions depending....

Strong preferences:
1. There're black people in it. Because I'm black. If I'm looking at cards meant to reflect back upon me the range/depths of my unconscious, I'd prefer them to look like me. I hadn't realized how automatic and energy-draining the steps my brain goes through are for constantly putting or keeping myself in the shoes of white people when I engage in art - once in a while is normal for most people but since it's happening most of the time I've realized there is a cognitive load I'm often unaware of, and how that makes my own self image suffer or confused a bit if it isn't balanced, or maybe at this point, even overwhelmed by art that is made for me as an audience or participant. Besides that I've noticed that I've always felt more detached and like a spectator in a lot of media (growing up in the states) and definitely in tarot, and I've realized now that art is more visceral and involving and powerful and immediate when it's showing someone who looks like me.

That being said I also have to like the art, and it's better if they're made by black people because of cultural nuance and because the perspective of the artist can often be felt. Sometimes you can just tell. I've made myself my own deck, but it's not up to my own tastes yet, even though I am proud of myself. So I'm hoping to someday be able to make my own dream deck. In the meantime, I've gotten the Shrine of the Black Medusa tarot, even though I don't really like collage decks. I like it though. I'll want to talk about it sometime. I'm also trying to get the Dust ii Onyx tarot travel edition. So that'll be 3 decks I own that are essentially exclusively black. I think working with them heavily will feel.....maybe like coming home, and also like I'm being seen, like I'm with my family and I don't have to try so hard anymore. Like sanctuary.

2. It's not tokenizing. There's a whole scanning process I go through. If there's 1 or 3 out of 78, I just don't consider it as 'for' me. If it's diverse and made with that inclusivity in mind, then it's 'for' me. And if there are the same cards you always see as being assigned to black people when they do appear, then I'm kinda like eh, and move on.

3. There are other brown people. I grew up in pretty diverse areas so seeing other brown people feels more like the world I know and am used to, and also makes me feel more at home. It also feels more realistic as a result for me.

4. It can be read as queer, or has been made by queer people, and/or for queer people. I'm queer and I feel like representation can aid the healing process. Like art therapy. It's also sort of the same as the point above. I didn't grow up aware of queerness that much, maybe in part because I'm from a conservative (immigrant) culture. Also it helps you feel less lonely

5. The more diversity in age, ability, body size, etc, the better. It makes it feel more real as a deck for me. Especially when they're not being used as a symbol in themselves, but sometimes I'm okay with it too. The Numinous shines here and in all these categories to me. The Next World of course too.

--

Alright so there are those strong preferences. I also am into esotericism and the occult though. A lot of modern decks are wonderful and great and inclusive and beautiful, but not always occult or esoteric. I'm starting to label some decks as....a little more shallow, maybe, not to be rude but, a little bit more...normal? I understand there are people involved in tarot for different reasons so I don't mean that in a rude way. I'm still trying to find the words.

I really thought I was going to get the Modern Witch tarot, and maybe I still will someday, but I realized that a lot of the RWS symbols had been sort of glossed over or erased or changed. I love the art and it's beautiful, though it's a little less diverse of gender than I expected, I do see a lot of people I know and love, in my family, amongst my friend group, in the cards. It's kinda weird! But....for example, in the Tower someone is being impaled. So they never make it to the bottom where the Star card is? In the Fool, she's holding a smart phone, so it's hard for me to see her as immersed in the present moment or open and listening to spirit and being all mystically involved with her surroundings. The HP feels a bit mundane too.

Maybe I'm being too harsh on it though. The Halloween tarot takes liberties too. Hm.

So, other sort of criteria or things I like in decks, that can end up making a deck an exception to my above preferences, especially if they're in combination with each other:

1. Esoteric/occult in design.
2. Highly symbolic, lots of information to draw from
3. Not minimalist
4. Hilarious
5. Powerful art (Dust ii Onyx might fall into this category - they're not busy in symbols, but they are powerful)
6. Designed very intentionally, maybe even rigorously (Baba Studios excels here)
7. Art that I don't hate. I recently trimmed my Thoth deck and turns out, I loooooooove the minors. The Fool and Magus turn me off (their faces v_v the Magus is so derpy looking) but aside from that I appreciate the beauty of the deck a lot more now. Especially the minors.
8. Colorful. Don't like Black and White or Greyscale decks. I love love love colors.
9. Some sort of historic or other significance for my practice / study.
10. Unique and speaks to something in my soul/spirit and how I feel about magick.
11. I feel otherwise seen.
12. Not scary

I'd say about half my collection meets my preferences, some skirt or flirt with it, and and the rest meet good parts of the second chunk of my criteria. Also, I try to avoid 'good idea decks' - where I'll have to learn about some sort of niche subject to enjoy the deck. If I haven't learned it, I probably won't anytime soon, haha. And then it'll sit on my shelf collecting dust.

Ah this ended up being longer than I expected haha.