[Poll] Tarot/oracle deck size?

[moonvoice]

Would you use an oracle deck if it was standard playing card size? (I.e. quite small for the hands in terms of shuffling?)

Normally I prefer larger decks, but 3.5 x 2.5 inches is the standard size offered and I am thinking about tweaking with layout to see if I can work with this size.

If I can, would you work with this size?

Poll #5489

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: Just the Poll Creator, participants: 57

Standard playing card size (3.5 x 2.5 inches) for a tarot / oracle deck, what do you think?

For an art deck, it's kind of small, so I'd wait for a larger format.
6 (10.5%)

For an art deck, it's kind of small, but I'd still use that format.
34 (59.6%)

I don't care what size as long as I can use your artwork for self-work and divination already!!!
27 (47.4%)

I'm sight or vision impaired, that size is too small.
3 (5.3%)

I guess I'd get it, but I'd probably wait for a larger size.
4 (7.0%)

I suppose this is where I vote for the ticky box?
26 (45.6%)

Also, infinite thanks to tsukikokoro who has gotten me thinking about this in different ways, as well. :)

Comments

[wireandroses]

i have arthritis in my hands, which makes big cards hard or impossible to work with - i would absolutely LOVE a divination deck that was standard playing card sized.

[finch]

This times a thousand. I would actively prefer smaller decks.

[elialshadowpine]

^^^^ this!!!
I actually have a fair amount of trouble shuffling standard size tarot decks because my hands are effectively the size of a child's. (No, seriously, I have to buy children's size gloves, which, btw, sucks when looking for leather driving gloves.) Arthritis is also a consideration recently, but the small hands have been a problem for much longer.

[allati]

Thiiiiis.

I cannot handle the larger cards at all.

The Shadowscapes Tarot is an art deck, and yes it's kinda small for an art deck, but I still use it because a) I would do anything to use that art for divination, and b) my hands just *fail* when it comes to anything bigger, cards everywhere, inability to even hold the deck decently.

[amethystfirefly]

adding my voice to the chorus of "this!"

[sidheblessed]

I am fine with standard playing card size, as long as it doesn't take away from the art at all. I prefer slightly larger so I don't have to put the card against my nose to see finer details.

[moonvoice]

I'm going to put up some samples later on today or this week, I think, so people can actually see for themselves how much it detracts from the artwork. I think it's a positive that my style is so bold, the animal definitely stands out. But things like the spirals and such are missing and probably wouldn't even print out.

[travelyggdrasil]

I prefer playing card size. I find the standard oracle/tarot decks too hard to shuffle.

[moonvoice]

Cool, thanks for letting me know!

[zuki_san]

Yeah, sure that's on the small side and wouldn't be as lovely to show off your detailed artwork with...

On the other hand, I get to give you money for your art, and I'm willing to bet that a deck published in the standard, smaller, size is cheaper. It's already a custom deck and I am not-so-wealthy, so cheap is good. Cheap is definitely a bonus!

Smaller cards are easier for me to shuffle, also!

So I voted for, 'Small but I'd use it,' 'Don't care, just want it,' and 'Ticky box!'

[moonvoice]

Yeah, it is on the small size, though anything still 'useable' would still sacrifice all of the finer details in the inking. But there'd still be prints and such available, so if people wanted larger versions of the pictures they could get them.

[hrafn]

I have kind of large hands, but I find standard playing cards much easier to shuffle and manipulate. I do love the size of my Thoth deck, because large cards = bigger art, but I am always frustrated with how awkward shuffling is (the cards feel a lot stiffer than regular playing cards, too). Now that I've thought about it a little more, I'd probably slightly prefer a larger deck, because it's not like I'm playing cards, or needing to shuffle a lot, so having more area for art would be a good trade-off :)

I'm excited that you are thinking about making this, whatever the size is! :)

[moonvoice]

I'd prefer a larger deck too, so you're not alone. But there's no print-on-demand printer that offers larger sizes for an Australian client, I've been looking for a while! So I'd either need to go with a custom job which will likely require a huge minimum order and cost the earth, or with print on demand I can literally buy in small amounts and sell those small amounts and see how they go.

But definitely, I like larger decks too.

[winneganfake]

Having done an art deck that's standard playing-sized cards, I can say that there's plenty of people who have no problem with the smaller size whatsoever. getting work to translate detail into that size decently was a bit of a challenge, but otherwise, I've had no complaints on the size of the cards.

[moonvoice]

That deck looks gorgeous in terms of quality and colour saturation, thank you for providing a link! And thanks for letting me know about your own personal experience!

[bodlon]

I do have a deck that's standard size, but it's a deck that also carries standard markings and seems designed primarily to teach cartomancy for a 52 card deck.

I could see a smaller deck being potentially interesting (especially once I get past my knee-jerk reaction and start thinking about how much better it might fit into a backpack), but there's an allure to a slightly larger card as well in terms of more detailed art being more visible and all.

[zuki_san]

I have a friend that does playing-card cartomancy, and is a bit of a collector of playing card decks with noteworthy or unusual art. What's the deck?

[xmetanoiax]

The one benefit I can see to that is easy shuffling. I think my only problem with that is that your art is SO detailed oriented, I'd feel like I was missing out on too much of it. I'd definitely rather splurge on a larger size.

[moonvoice]

Yeah, there'd definitely be a situation where dots and spirals wouldn't show up at all, but in all honesty - I'm not sure they would in a larger deck either. A lot of detail would be sacrificed in my style. But - kind of like with my userpics - enough stands out in miniature that you can still tell what the animal is!

[silverjackal]

While the detail of your artwork deserves to be savored (so a larger size is preferable), in terms of deck manipulation a standard playing card size is actually easier than the size used for most Tarot decks.

[moonvoice]

I like larger sizes too, especially for art decks, but deck manipulation is easier with smaller cards; that's for sure.

A Little Short-Handed

[perzephone]

As someone with freakishly small hands, I appreciate smaller Tarot & oracle decks. The Thoth deck is beautiful, but I can't shuffle it worth a damn. I usually end up spreading it out on a surface and milling the cards around. Most art decks end up being just that for me - art - because I can't wrap my hands around them.

Yes, as a matter of fact, from a man's perspective, my grip is amazingly flattering.

Re: A Little Short-Handed

[allati]

The Thoth deck is beautiful, but I can't shuffle it worth a damn.

When my ex-boyfriend moved out he had me keep his Thoth deck because he never got much use out of it. Well, neither do I. I can barely hold it, let alone shuffle it. What is *with* that deck.

[unaspenser]

Personally I might prefer a small deck. I have several large tarot decks that I find hard to use and handle because of my little hands. I like the size of standard cards.

[moonvoice]

That's good to know; thank you! :D

[welshwmn3]

I have small hands and can shuffle the larger deck okay. It took me a long time practicing to make it work. However, a smaller deck would make me not have to stretch my hands as much.

The only problem I'd have with a smaller deck has been stated above: Your art is so detailed, a smaller size would lose some of the detail. But either way, I'd buy it!

[moonvoice]

Yeah, there'd definitely be some detail loss; that said, there'll likely be some detail loss even in a larger card. It's not like I can go that much larger and still have a workable, comfortable deck. But definitely - there'd be some significant loss in the detailing.

[spider_fox]

I've been waiting for the oracle deck to come out for the past several years, ever since I first saw your pics for your hypothetical Australian deck.

So I suppose my main option is 3. However, I tend to shuffle my tarot cards much like I do poker cards, and I find that larger cards are clumsier for practical use, since my hands are a bit small.

I think your art, since the subject matter tends to be very large and obvious (like your totem art), and the rest is abstract in bold coloration and lines, your art would still stand out rather well on a poker deck size.

However, I'd still pay even if it's a larger size. For art decks, the larger the better I think, and it's not like there's only one way to mix cards up for their use.

[moonvoice]

I do think the subject matter is large and obvious that it'd definitely be workable at a smaller size. I mean, the fact that my pictures translate as 100x100 userpics, and you can still tell what's going on, is a pretty good sign that it'd work at playing deck size.

But I lament for not being able to print at a larger size. Heh.

[goddess_incarnate]

I'd actually prefer a standard sized or a larger deck. If the cards were too small, I think it would be worse for me for shuffling. I'm pretty sure I can shuffle normal tarot cards better than I can shuffle a deck of cards.

[moonvoice]

I'm pretty sure I can shuffle normal tarot cards better than I can shuffle a deck of cards.

Me too! :D

[feralkiss]

I have The Bestiary deck, which isn't a tarot deck by any mean but features animal artwork and has standard cards size. It still looks very cool. Also, I have smallish hands. :)

[moonvoice]

That's good to know! Thank you! :D

[moonvoice]

A larger size wouldn't be available until I had a) a disposable income (which I really, really don't) of the order that I could save about $10,000 for a project that might not be able to pay any of that back so I could self-published through a reputable printer who generally accept minimum orders of around 1,000 decks at once; or b) a professional publisher pick up the project for me.

Both a) / b) aren't likely, so it's getting to a 'it's this, or nothing' point.

That said, even a slightly larger deck would still sacrifice detail. There's just dots / spirals and so on present in my pictures which are best seen in originals or large prints.

[tsukikokoro]

I would definitely use a playing card size oracle; I think it works well for your totem as style. Playing card size also has the advantage of fitting into card protectors, which I go fucking gaga for, even though it makes shuffling more difficult. With that size and with as many totems as you've produced, you'd also be playing to my "gotta catch 'em all" susceptibility (I have 1400+ pokemon cards from before 2000, and I've recently decided to start collecting more again).

That said, I would prefer to buy the original Australian Animal Oracle Deck as standard tarot-sized cards, when that is a possibility, because I'm very attached to some of those images and the standard Tarot size seems to be more Impressive.

I'm glad I was helpful! I love your work; I want to share anything to help you get it out to the world. :)

Well...

[ysabetwordsmith]

You didn't leave a line for "my hands are small so I like small decks" anywhere!

As a professional reviewer, I can tell you that small decks are fine for divination. One of my favorites, the Ferret Tarot, is about the size of bridge cards. The real question you need to ask is whether the size will work with your art. If you're drawing especially for that size, no problem. If you're trying to shrink the extremely detailed stuff you normally do down to that size ... maybe, maybe not. Test it first. Highly detailed art often doesn't shrink well, and detail is among your best traits.

Also check any function additions you make. Some cards have a bar or frame with the title, number, element, or other info. That shrinks the amount of space available for the main image. However, it's usually better than dropping those things OVER the main image. Again, test to see what works.

Re: Well...

[moonvoice]

Yeah, I'm going to make some preliminary cards for size / text and stuff and post them here, I think.

[sarah_tv]

I kinda like Coaster sized cards for these kinds of things, but I don't actually use Oracle Cards very often. I don't find them all that helpful.

[valkyriur]

I think that a smaller deck would be great because it would be easier to carry. I love many of my decks, but find them too large to "shuffle" (I use the term loosely) or even deal for a spread

My only fear is that I would miss the detail or your work if they are small.

[peaceful_two_eyes]

As another note, those of us with tiny hands appreciate smaller decks. Especially when it comes to shuffling!