Re: Numbers on Tarot decks

11
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote: The Visconti-Sforza Hanged Man has tack-holes both top and bottom - the only card that has it that way. That means that at some point, somebody had it tacked upside-down.

I interpret it to mean that for both the Visconti-Sforza and Charles VI, somebody didn't like a hanged man. They wanted him standing.
This attitude - fright at terrible images - may also explain why we have only one "Tower" and no Devils among the luxury cards of the 15th century. Their owners couldn't stand some of the images. Perhaps superstition.
Image

Re: Numbers on Tarot decks

12
Image


Are you sure it is a 21?
It's possible it is a 20, with zero partially cancelled?

In Este Temperanza, over the tackhole I see the upper part of a 7. :-B

About the Appeso, I remember many printed decks with the Appeso upside-down; this is the first I've found on-line:
Image


I haven't Kaplan here, but I remember there is the photo of man standing on one feet named Prudenza, I imagine it was copied from an Appeso upside-down.

Ciao
Marco

Re: Numbers on Tarot decks

13
Otello wrote:
Are you sure it is a 21?
It's possible it is a 20, with zero partially cancelled?

In Este Temperanza, over the tackhole I see the upper part of a 7. :-B

About the Appeso, I remember many printed decks with the Appeso upside-down; this is the first I've found on-line:

I haven't Kaplan here, but I remember there is the photo of man standing on one feet named Prudenza, I imagine it was copied from an Appeso upside-down.

Ciao
Marco
Kaplan I p.146, from ca. 1720, standing Prudence. But might well be, that there were earlier, in any case it's pre-Gebelin. Catelin Gefroy (1557) has it hanging, Tarot de Paris has it hanging, but the Vievil-deck has it standing.

Image


The picture shows it standing, but the number is at the bottom (with wrong direction) and other numbers in the deck appear at the top.
Vievil came likely from Belgium and the later Tarot from this direction also had the standing hanged man.

Image


Vandenboerre c. 1780
http://a.trionfi.eu/WWPCM/decks05/d02453/d02453.htm

So perhaps an Error Belgique. Well, if one would conclude, that this error only happened in Belgium, perhaps we're then in a time of later 17th century for the "added numbers" for the Charles VI and the possible error in the archive becomes probable.

***************

:-) ... There is with some security no 100% security about these tack-hole interpretations, but we know, that in the case of the card "world" a "21" would be expected. And there is a way to see this 21 ... well, one needs some goodwill.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Numbers on Tarot decks

14
Yes, with Star-Moon-Sun beeing 16-17-18 I'd expect 21 on World, too. :)

Fact is on Sun I see 19, a possible 6 close to the tackhole on Star- but it may be the nail halo (?) - and I see nothing on the Moon.
I mean, with Chariot beeing 10 ( you said: I don't see the 10 on Este card :) ) and Temperance beeing 7, 20 for World makes sense, too.

But it's true my experience in manuscript deciphering is limited to my doctor prescriptions... :)
If it's not complicated, can you please help me to see the number on Chariot and Moon, possibly completing the cancelled part with a contrasting color?

Ciao
Marco

P.S. what is your source for Este photos? I have those from Beinecke site, but yours looks better.

Re: Numbers on Tarot decks

15
Otello wrote:Yes, with Star-Moon-Sun beeing 16-17-18 I'd expect 21 on World, too. :)

Fact is on Sun I see 19, a possible 6 close to the tackhole on Star- but it may be the nail halo (?) - and I see nothing on the Moon.
I mean, with Chariot beeing 10 ( you said: I don't see the 10 on Este card :) ) and Temperance beeing 7, 20 for World makes sense, too.

But it's true my experience in manuscript deciphering is limited to my doctor prescriptions... :)
If it's not complicated, can you please help me to see the number on Chariot and Moon, possibly completing the cancelled part with a contrasting color?

Ciao
Marco

P.S. what is your source for Este photos? I have those from Beinecke site, but yours looks better.
hi Otello,

I partly don't understand your questions (maybe an misunderstanding) ... The pictures are from Beinecke, at least I get the resolution rather high. The picture first show according the resolution of the monitor, but if you click on them, they enlarge (might depend on the browser)
Huck
http://trionfi.com