When a Deck Becomes a “Tarot de Marseille”

If you read “Tarot de Marseille” on a current box, you might imagine a deck born in Marseille and passed down unchanged from the beginning. The label is more complicated. It can name a graphic type, a publishing tradition, an object produced in the city, or a contemporary deck inspired by old models. To understand it, you have to ask when the copy was made, where, who attributes it to that type, and since when the name has circulated. The Bibliothèque nationale de France has recently contributed an object that makes that question especially interesting: a complete deck by Philippe Vachier from 1639, made in Marseille.

The BnF explains that the expression “tarot de Marseille” has been used since the 1830s for a tarot of Latin suits — batons, cups, coins, and swords — produced in the city and in other areas of southeastern France. It also notes that Lyon may have been a cradle of the model. These are statements about a designation and a graphic family, not a birth certificate for every image. A tarot produced before 1830 can be classified today under that name because of its features; that does not mean its maker printed those words on the box.

The Parisian Example of Jean Noblet

The BnF holds a deck by Jean Noblet, a 17th-century Parisian cardmaker. The institution describes it as one of the oldest known copies that fit the graphic type conventionally called “tarot de Marseille.” This fact breaks the simple equivalence between style and city. This object is associated with Paris; its later classification refers to a visual family. If we write “Noblet, Tarot de Marseille,” we must add that we are talking about a graphic type, not a manufacture in Marseille.

The BnF record lists seventy-three surviving cards out of seventy-eight, woodcut and stencil-colored, with dimensions and back described. That information identifies a copy, not an ideal deck that existed the same everywhere. The difference from a complete modern deck also matters: if you buy a seventy-eight-card reconstruction of Noblet, five images may depend on editorial decisions. Why Incomplete Decks Survive helps readers interpret that kind of edition.

The 1639 Vachier Deck and What Changes

The BnF announced the acquisition of a complete seventy-eight-card deck attributed to Philippe Vachier, made in Marseille and dated 1639 on the Two of Coins (Deux de Deniers). His workshop mark appears on the Two of Cups. The BnF presents it as the oldest known copy of the “Marseille” type produced in that city. The news changes the documentary basis: previously, an early Parisian example such as Noblet’s was known, and most identified decks belonged to the 18th century. Now there is an older and more complete Marseille piece that forces a revision of some chronological accounts.

The phrase “oldest known” must be preserved. It does not prove that Vachier invented the model or that before 1639 another deck, now lost, did not exist. Nor does it show that all the features of later editions were fixed exactly in his deck. The BnF distinguishes the graphic type from the individual copy and the possibility of an earlier history in other centers. A discovery expands the evidence; it does not magically turn every hypothesis into certainty.

The Conver Problem and Printed Dates

Decks associated with Conver are another important piece of the visual tradition, but their dates require care. A BnF record describes a deck bearing the inscription “N.as Conver 1760.” The maker’s authority record identifies Nicolas Conver as active between 1809 and 1833, so the inscription cannot automatically be treated as the date on which that man made the copy in 1760. The BnF also holds late-19th-century reissues that continue to use the model and the old inscription. The article How to Identify the Date of a Historical Deck details the case.

There is no need to resolve the entire history of each woodblock to teach the reader the principle: a printed date, a model date, and a copy date can be different. If someone advertises “an original 1760 Tarot de Marseille” based only on the reproduced card of a new deck, proof is lacking. You have to identify the object being sold or cited, its technique, provenance, and bibliographic record.

“Marseille” as Place, Type, and Cultural Brand

Using the same word for three things encourages misunderstandings. As a place, Marseille refers to production documented there, such as the Vachier deck. As a type, it designates a graphic family that can include objects made in other cities, such as Noblet in Paris. As a current cultural label, “Tarot de Marseille” appears in reissues, manuals, and modern decks that reinterpret the model. None of the uses is illegitimate on its own; the problem arises when one shifts from one to another without warning.

A useful way to write a caption would be: “Card from a contemporary edition inspired by the Marseille graphic type.” Another, for an identified object, would be: “Deck by Philippe Vachier, Marseille, 1639, according to the BnF.” A third: “Tarot by Jean Noblet, Paris, second half of the 17th century, classified today within the Marseille type.” These phrases tell the reader what specific relationship the deck has to the name.

How to Compare Two Editions Without Looking for the “Only Original”

First choose cataloged objects, not loose photographs. Note maker, proposed date, city, number of surviving cards, technique, and back. Then compare three cards whose identity is certain. Look for similarities in composition and differences in line, color, or label. If a modern edition restores a damaged card, mark that addition. The goal is not to choose one deck as “the true one” and discard the others; it is to understand a tradition built through workshops and reissues.

The later designation can be useful for navigating a catalog and finding learning books. At Sabio Tarot we recommend learning with the edition you actually have in hand and naming it. If your deck belongs to the Marseille type, its cards may differ from those of Vachier or Noblet. For a personal reading, work with its visible images. For a historical claim, return to the documented copy and the institutional source.

An Open History

The BnF’s Vachier find shows why it is worth writing tarot history as revisable knowledge. A deck reappears, a catalog is updated, and the date of the “oldest known” changes. What remains is the method: distinguish later name, city of manufacture, and preserved object. In this way we can enjoy the richness of the Tarot de Marseille without turning a useful label into a legend that simplifies two centuries of production.

Sources Consulted

• BnF, “A Tarot That Reshuffles the Cards”. Name since the 1830s, graphic context, and the 1639 Vachier deck.
• BnF, “Tarot de Jean Noblet”. Parisian copy and classification by type.
• BnF, deck associated with Conver and Camoin reissue. Examples of model and later edition.