TdM1 & TdM2 : The difference

[Joan Marie]

greetings,

I am doing a bit of research on something and I just ran across the terms TdM1 and TdM2 to denote different styles or categories of TdM decks.

I've not heard of this before (not surprising) and I was wondering if anyone out there had any insight into this or could maybe direct me.
But, I would love to see something about it here because I would bet I am not the only one interested.

[Charlie Brown]

I've seen sites the denote the differences pretty clearly, but a couple of early decks like the Noblet fall into type I and the Conver and most others fall into type two. The differences are specific like, for example, the Hanged Man has his hands visible in a type I deck. Things like that.

[Charlie Brown]

https://tarot-heritage.com/history-4/ta ... s-type-ii/

[Joan Marie]

https://tarot-heritage.com/history-4/ta ... s-type-ii/

Well, this sure answers it completely!

Great post from Tarot Heritage. Lots of pics comparing the Type 1 and Type 2.

Really interesting. Thanks!

[Amoroso]

I'm just starting out in my study of the Marseille. Just a question.

May I use a book that specifically discusses a Type I Marseille (e. g. Reading The Marseille Tarot by Jean-Michel David which focuses on the Noblet) to study a Type II deck (e. g. The Conver or Madenié) and vice-versa?

[JudyK]

May I use a book that specifically discusses a Type I Marseille (e. g. Reading The Marseille Tarot by Jean-Michel David which focuses on the Noblet) to study a Type II deck (e. g. The Conver or Madenié) and vice-versa?

The difference between the two "types" is purely down to small details in a few of the cards - the type of canopy on the Chariot, for instance. Have a look at the link Charlie Brown provided above to see more examples.

As long as you're aware of the differences and make whatever adjustments you might feel are necessary to your understanding of the cards, you shouldn't have any trouble.

[fire cat pickles]

Recently someone has coined the term "TdM3" to annotate modern interpretations as well. It does drive TdM purists a bit wild however

[Charlie Brown]

I'm just starting out in my study of the Marseille. Just a question.

May I use a book that specifically discusses a Type I Marseille (e. g. Reading The Marseille Tarot by Jean-Michel David which focuses on the Noblet) to study a Type II deck (e. g. The Conver or Madenié) and vice-versa?

As Judy said, that won't be a problem. The J.M. David book is the book I most want to read, but I do know quite a bit about it. Given what I know about your background, I would suggest that Caitlin Matthew's Untold Tarot is probably the best book to get you started actually reading the historical decks.

Another piece of advice that I always give to folks starting out with TdM is to read majors-only. Not only is it the most common way that the deck is/was read in Europe, it also is the most effective way to break you out of the habits of RWS/Thoth reading. Majors only with very mundane questions in the way to go.

[Amoroso]

Given what I know about your background, I would suggest that Caitlin Matthew's Untold Tarot is probably the best book to get you started actually reading the historical decks.

Thanks, CB. I'm currently reading Ben-Dov's Revealed, but from the reviews it seems like the Matthews book gets into the actual nitty gritty of conducting readings, which is precisely what I need too. I'll be getting a copy.

[Charlie Brown]

Ben-Dov is a good book but, especially for the pips, he's very rooted in fixed meanings, which—to my understanding—isn't really the most authentic way of reading those cards. I tend to approach them as set of symbols or icons that get contextualized within the context of the question. TO my mind, TdM benefits from being very very specific with your question.