I'm not a fan of reading with decks that show elemental imagery attributed to different suits than Wands - Fire, Cups - Water, Swords - Air, Pents/Disks - Earth. There is of course nothing wrong with other element systems, like Eudes Picard's. RWS clone decks that look exactly like the format of Coleman-Smith's art but with a Christmas theme, etc. aren't my cuppa. A bit of fun for those who enjoy the theme, and I'm not a grinch about them. As my grandfather used to say when he wasn't impressed, "Those who like it speak highly of it."

Dog decks. I loathe dogs - and please don't tell me how lovely they are; I was bitten as a small child and have feared them with good reason ever since. Two owners who told me (as an adult) that THEIR dogs wouldn't hurt a fly saw their dogs go for me and one of those bit me to the bone. I own the odd exception to this: the 22 Arcani I Cani del Mondo for Il Meneghello. And this one . Sometimes standout art will win out. Angels. Decks with "agendas" - Akashic springs to mind. Ones with colouring so psychedelic they make me go cross-eyed (some of DV';s spring to mind). Any involving Indigo children.....

Interesting. I watched the same Ethony YouTube video this morning. I have to say, I am in almost total agreement with all of her choices! I make a couple of exceptions when it comes to Animal Decks—but they ARE exceptions. I really dislike animal decks that are anthropomorphic ...either dressing the animals up in human clothes (I hate that in real life as well) or assigning them with human-generated stereotypical characteristics ...foxes are sly, etc. I own one cat deck ...only one ...that really does understand cats and the behaviours depicted in the cards are very applicable to classic RWS meanings. It's The Cat's Eye Tarot. I find it usable. One category of decks that I was originally drawn to, but have changed my mind about, are any 'classical artist' decks—decks depicting artwork by famous artists, but compiled into a tarot deck by other designers. I remember delightedly buying the Breugel tarot and the Arthur Rackham tarot, but was disappointed that the artwork chosen for both just didn't reflect the tarot meanings. Nice picture gallery ...but.... I have given both of these decks away, and I don't buy these kinds of decks any more. (Exceptions would be decks that are actually designed to BE tarot decks by the famous artists themselves. Salvator Dali did that. So did Ferenc Pinter ...I just acquired the Pinter deck, and wow. But both of these artists were mindful of tarot when they designed the decks ...at least the major arcana cards.) I am also extremely irritated by any deck that depicts (especially female) figures in ethereally wispy dancer poses. This is horrendously common. Do deck creators think tarot wisdom is all about females floating around, garments flapping, stretching out arms to the sky? Apparently many do. Even a few deck creators whom I like a lot do this occasionally. Ciro Marchetti, is one example. He makes magnificent decks, but there are always a couple of cards that make me gnash my teeth at wasted opportunities. He gives us that magnificently grounded, mischievous Fool in the Tarot Grand Luxe deck (my favourite Fool of all time), but then follows up with a vapidly gorgeous Temperance floating angel, reaching mindlessly to the starry heavens holding two cups. Why? I am not attracted to Manga decks or to Witchy/Halloween-y decks or to 'dark' decks, where every image is either deliberately frightening or downbeat. I'm not actually attracted to any 'theme' decks in general. Nothing wrong with these, but they're not me. In general, the more down-to-earth a deck is, and the richer the interpretive possibilities are from each card, the better I like the deck. I especially love a deck that gives me a new perspective on the RWS cards. Nowadays, THAT is what gets me to buy a new deck. Some new insight into the cards. The Allcento Tarot, and The Everyday Enchantment Tarot are two examples of new decks with new outlooks on the classic RWS cards.