posted 04-07-2006 09:39 PM            

Arg(um)entum in Memorial Fork

quote:

---

A discrepancy between the styles of the monogram and the date does add some weight to your theory. Now, if someone out there with a good set of books can identify the date the piece was made, and if that date is significantly earlier than 1869, that would indeed strengthen you case.

---

Dale in Identifying Old vs. New Pieces of Same Pattern

quote:

---

One simple and fast way to differentiate the new from the old: look for hand engraved triple monograms. These are found almost exclusively on old silver.

---

ahwt in Small French Cup - Part 1

quote:

---

Also the style of letters is not something I am familiar with. I believe the letters are DRB. The curves in each letter have hatch marks of a sort that break up the flow of the letters. Not like the feathering I am used to seeing. Of course this may be a little late for the feathering style.

---

swarter in 19th C Canadian?

quote:

---

If by "the monogram reads vertically," you mean the letters are one above the other with the handle pointing upwards, this arrangement is not typical of the period; it is sometimes seen on later spoons. What is the style of lettering?

---

tmockait in Dublin spoon

quote:

---

The monogram letters also look a bit crude as well, further supporting your conjecture.

---

ahwt in Impact of monograms on old silver value

quote:

---

One can get some idea of what monograms styles were in different time periods by looking in reference books on silver. I am not aware of any book just devoted to that subject, but looking through silver books in any library should give one a pretty good idea of the various styles through the years.

---

I believe the question can be very succinctly answered in Dale's comments below, from the last thread linked above:

quote:

---

Engraving is something of an art. Forms of it can be dated in terms of 'not before'. Thus there are sorts of engraving, or styles, that could not have been done before 1885. We can not say when they ended. Dating by engraving is a very, very hazardous enterprise. What engraving requires is tremendous skill and meticulous execution; things that still exist.

---

I'd also like to point out a pet peeve of mine. I'll assume that hello truly was speaking exclusively of monograms (I'm giving the benefit of the doubt here). Yet too often I hear people referring to any engraved lettering as "monogramming".

The American Heritage Dictionary says this of the word monogram:

quote:

---

A design composed of one or more letters, typically the initials of a name, used as an identifying mark.

---

The word's origin is here given on the Online Etymology Dictionary:

quote:

---

1696, from Fr. monogramme, from L.L. monogramma (5c.), from Late Gk. monogrammon, "a character formed of several letters in one design," especially in ref. to the signature of the Byzantine emperors, from neut. of monogrammos (adj.) "consisting of a single letter," lit. "drawn with single lines," from Gk. monos "single, alone" + gramma "letter, line." Earlier it meant "sketch or picture drawn in lines only, without shading or color," a sense also found in L. and probably in Gk.

---

Today, the word implies a design which consists of (almost invariably) no more than a few letters, the initial letters of one or more names or words, and are not intended to spell out anything. When I speak of full names engraved on silver, or dedicatory inscriptions, I just refer to them as "engravings".

posted 04-08-2006 01:20 PM            

Monograms and Alphabetical Devices by Howard and Blanche Kercher (1970) contains four reprints of 19th Century books. One of these, Knight's New Book of Plain Ornamental and Reversed Cyphers (1830) is the type of style book that would have been used by 18th and early 19th Century silversmiths and engravers to copy from. The others contain more elaborate Victorian styles.

Ornamental Penmanship: Two Eighteenth Century English Classics of Calligraphy(1983), one by Thomas Thompkins (1777) and one by William Milnes (1795). These are excellent for contemporary script letter forms, but contain no monograms. Best for interpreting handwriting.

Both books would be useful to have.