Again, I faced that look on my boyfriend’s face at the store that clearly said “You’re buying ANOTHER Tarot deck? Really?”
Yup!

The Fool from the Quest Tarot
I’ve seen some of the Majors of this deck and was immediately intrigued. The images were interesting but what immediately grabbed my attention was the border. Often the border is rather useless and unfortunately can take up a lot of valuable real estate. But in this case, the Quest Tarot has turned the borders of this deck into a wealth of correspondence information to help your study and readings.
For example, the Fool card’s border tells us:
- planet: Uranus
- stone: Amazonite
- Hebrew letter: Aleph
- rune: Wyn
In the companion book that comes in the set (I was upset that no bag came with this deck, just the little cardboard box – looks like this was pre-organdy bag era), the author/artist includes not only discussion over each card, but also offers quick, reference chapters over each of these correspondences. These correspondence explanations take up the first part of the book and are a good balance between overwhelming us with too much/deep info and skimping.
Things to know about this deck:

Notice I-Ching and astrological sign correspondences in the Pips.
- Pip cards do not have pictorial representations of the cards’ meanings – they only depict the actual number of cups, wands, etc. Though the images are still beautiful and a joy to look at, if you require imagery on this card to help guide the meaning then this deck would not be helpful.
- Court Cards are renamed and reordered: Mother (Queen), Father (King), Daughter (Page), and Son (Knight) in that order. These cards do depict people.
- Some Majors have been renamed: Temperance is Alchemy, Judgment is Aeon, World is Universe (think Thoth-style)
- New Major Arcana card – Trump 21 – The Multiverse – this card is of the artist/writer’s own creation, which has it’s origin in the new quantum physics (this deck is billed as “21st Centry Tarot”)
- Each card has a keyword beneath the name of the deck. Pip cards are Crowley/Thoth deck-inspired. Keywords chosen for the Majors are expected. The Hanged Man, however, has the keyword “Uniqueness” which may not jive popular interpretations.
- The Blank Card - Another insertion by the creator, there is a blank card added to the deck that includes the decorative border but the rest is white space where you can add your own art and correspondences. He writes about three ways to use this card – make it your own personal “Significator” card, create your own additional card to the deck (another Major?) or simply leave it blank and read it as it comes up in your readings (such as using a blank rune when runecasting).
Verdict:
A beautiful deck. The borders remind me of the Guilded Tarot, but the all the art is done with 3-D rendering for a more computer-generated, alternate plane kinda feel.
The correspondences info will provide a wealth of knowledge to my study. My intention now with this deck is not so much for conducting readings but to use as a deck of study. I’ve never really delved into Tarot correspondences, and this deck provides a way to see how other disciplines integrate into the Tarot.
The companion book is tremendously helpful. While I was initially off-put by the price of this deck and book set (retailing at $34.95), the deck and book really make it worth your while. The companion book is an excellent resource that can be applied to any Tarot deck and will be a great thing to have on hand if you’re stuck wondering about a certain correspondence for a card and what it means in the card’s context.
Anyone else own this deck? How do you use it? Do you read with it? How does the correspondence information integrate into your working with this deck and others?




4 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 29, 2008 at 2:18 pm
David Alan Richards
A Multiverse card. Who would have thought of that? It looks good. I’m a fan of pictures in the pips, but I might get this one, anyway. Thanks!
October 12, 2008 at 10:59 am
Balakirev
I own the deck, but only use it in selecting pathwalking, not in readings. I didn’t realize until I’d bought it that the author bought into the whole “male=masculine=aggression=evil” and “femaile=feminine=all-knowing=good” stuff that’s been floating around the paganosphere for a while, now. Check out the Emperor, in particular, and his lengthy description of it: whew! A few others at least follow this pattern. It’s glib to make easy labels like this that attack half the human race for all the foibles of the world, or to associate traits with absolute good/evil. It’s harder to see the potential for positive and negative actions/energy in all combinations of traits…but also, I think, a lot more like the real world the tarot should reflect.
Just my opinions. Feel free to discard em, at will.
October 13, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Garnet
Balakirev,
Wow thanks for pointing this out – I haven’t really read through his card meanings since I was much more interested in the use of this deck for correspondences. It’s a shame that others subscribe to that kind of male/female understanding, but it’s interesting that it exists in this deck because the creator is a man. Maybe he was looking to understand the feminine through this deck and ended up knocking his book out of balance?
Thanks for your thoughts!
June 20, 2009 at 11:08 am
Catherine
Hi Garnet,
I read this post with interest as I own this deck and was thinking about reviewing it on my own blog (no plagiarism intended
).
It’s a very information rich deck, as you so rightly point out. Having used this deck for a number of years, I never really felt it was so biased to females, having said that, in the accompanying book The Compass, Martin does praise his mother for supporting him and dedicates the book to her.
With reference to the comment made by Balakirev, I have just read the entry for the Emperor; and I’m sorry, but I cannot see how at any point it can be seen as biased. An Emperor is by nature an authoritarian and I think Martin does a decent job in bringing this character into the 21st century while retaining his status and character.
In defence of Balakirev’s view, it’s also worth pointing out that Martin’s restructuring of the Court Cards into a family, with the female at the head could be seen as biased. It’s worth remembering though, that if we transpose that family back into their Court Card counterparts, then the Father is still a King etc.
While I’m not a feminist, I actually don’t see how a deck that perhaps leans to the feminine (does it really?), can be an attack on the masculine; and would like to point out that we all refine our tarot vocabulary according to what feels right for us whether we agree with the author of a deck or not.
It would seem I have my work cut out for me to produce a review as comprehensive as your own, minus the plagiarism! I shall have to give this some extra thought now
Warm wishes,
Catherine