Universal Tarot?
Conceived by Stuart R. Kaplan
Coloring by Mary Hanson-Roberts
"The Universal Waite" is something of a mystery. What made Mr. Kaplan of US Games Systems, Inc.
conceive of this deck, as the text on the box mentions, and commission Mary Hanson-Roberts to do a
new coloring or, in other words, another clone, of the Waite/Smith Tarot deck? I could have
understood if another manufacturer had done so to gain advantage of the popularity of the
Waite/Smith deck, but what Mr. Kaplan is doing now is to put forward a competitor to his own
product. Such business decisions are impenetrable.
Is the Universal Waite then actually a competitor to the genuine Waite/Smith deck? In my opinion it
is not. While I have a fairly good relationship to the first Hanson-Roberts deck which, despite
its character of a clone, has qualities of its own, the pencil coloring Mrs. Hanson-Roberts now
has adorned Pamela Colman Smith's illustrations with are too wishy-washy for my taste. And I
don't like the contours added, particularly when it comes to the faces, where the characters'
expressions and moods often are changed. This version tends to express a more romantic feeling,
and perhaps that is what Mr. Kaplan has been striving for.
This is not the first coloring variation of Pamela Colman Smith's original drawings; there are
earlier variations, like the University Book-edition and the Frankie Albano-Waite coloring. In a
former issue of MANTEIA Carol Herzer Abrams efforts in this direction were presented. While most
of the variations so far have been reasonably true to Pamela Colman Smith's original drawings,
Carol Herzer Abrams, did however, by "painting" (her expression) the cards rather than coloring
them, let her own ideas dominate and thus suppress Pamela's work. Mary Hanson-Roberts deck does
not change Pamela's drawings that much and I appreciate that. But still, I don't understand why so
many artists are using Pamela's artwork like a children's painting book, instead of expressing
their own ideas about the tarot? Maybe they don't have any of their own ideas? What I, however,
can understand is, that a non-artistic gifted person would like to do her own coloring to get a
better feeling for the deck. That seems reasonable to me, and therefore I would have preferred
Mr. Kaplan to have published a black & white edition of the deck, intended for self-coloring.
I suggested that to him many years ago, when really many people asked me, where they could find a
black & white edition. Mr. Kaplan didn't find it appropriate then; perhaps it is now?
"The Universal Waite" is something of a mystery. What made Mr. Kaplan of US Games Systems, Inc.
conceive of this deck, as the text on the box mentions, and commission Mary Hanson-Roberts to do a
new coloring or, in other words, another clone, of the Waite/Smith Tarot deck? I could have
understood if another manufacturer had done so to gain advantage of the popularity of the
Waite/Smith deck, but what Mr. Kaplan is doing now is to put forward a competitor to his own
product. Such business decisions are impenetrable.
Is the Universal Waite then actually a competitor to the genuine Waite/Smith deck? In my opinion it
is not. While I have a fairly good relationship to the first Hanson-Roberts deck which, despite
its character of a clone, has qualities of its own, the pencil coloring Mrs. Hanson-Roberts now
has adorned Pamela Colman Smith's illustrations with are too wishy-washy for my taste. And I
don't like the contours added, particularly when it comes to the faces, where the characters'
expressions and moods often are changed. This version tends to express a more romantic feeling,
and perhaps that is what Mr. Kaplan has been striving for.
This is not the first coloring variation of Pamela Colman Smith's original drawings; there are
earlier variations, like the University Book-edition and the Frankie Albano-Waite coloring. In a
former issue of MANTEIA Carol Herzer Abrams efforts in this direction were presented. While most
of the variations so far have been reasonably true to Pamela Colman Smith's original drawings,
Carol Herzer Abrams, did however, by "painting" (her expression) the cards rather than coloring
them, let her own ideas dominate and thus suppress Pamela's work. Mary Hanson-Roberts deck does
not change Pamela's drawings that much and I appreciate that. But still, I don't understand why so
many artists are using Pamela's artwork like a children's painting book, instead of expressing
their own ideas about the tarot? Maybe they don't have any of their own ideas? What I, however,
can understand is, that a non-artistic gifted person would like to do her own coloring to get a
better feeling for the deck. That seems reasonable to me, and therefore I would have preferred
Mr. Kaplan to have published a black & white edition of the deck, intended for self-coloring.
I suggested that to him many years ago, when really many people asked me, where they could find a
black & white edition. Mr. Kaplan didn't find it appropriate then; perhaps it is now?