I like to think that A.E. Waite's "Pictorial Key to the Tarot" started life out as the written notes given to Pamela Coleman Smith for her to draw the cards.
It's interesting how many decks make a reference to the Waite Colman Smith deck without going all-in and keeping to the core elements Waite said were important.
Admittedly, it only gets problematic when folks keep to Waite's designs except for, say, the suite's face cards, where they do something new and undocumented.
@yam655 What’s your take on the Morgan Greer specifically re this particular criteria?
I had to look up this deck. So, it combines Waite's research with that of another high magician, Case.
One of my issues with Waite is that swapping Strength and Judgement shows a fundamental lack of understanding about the tarot.
Like the astronomers insistent upon divine geometry, there is a simplicity to tarot that is hidden behind layers of esotericism for Waite and Case.
Waite refused to acknowledge aspects of the Tarot because they didn't fit his own esoteric assumptions.
The Morgan Greer deck _has_ books you can read to understand the deck better.
They may not be written by the illustrator of the deck, but when all of the documentation for the deck mentions Waite and Case, it is exceedingly easy to find Case's books on the tarot.
But, like the RWS deck, there's likely an expectation of the reader already being an initiate of various high magick mysteries.
It's interesting that the "next great thing in Tarot" isn't referenced by other decks, though.
That's totally valid.
The whole, "there are whole books explaining how to read this particular deck, they're just not written by the illustrator" is an area that more tarot and oracle decks would benefit from leaning in to, as far as I'm concerned.
It doesn't have to be a one person process.
@yam655 I’m into it