The Voynich Ninja

(20-03-2026, 10:21 AM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I've been searching through archives of monograms on the off chance that I come across the seal. Unfortunately, I haven't found the exact seal but perhaps something here is of interest for when and where the original seal could have been from. 

First some examples from "Schriften Atlas", compiled by Ludwig Petzendorfer (multiple prints but this is from 1889):
Page 242: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.



Next some from "An Encyclodaedia of Monograms" by James O'kane (1884):
Page 10: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.


Another example, except from embroidery! From "Bucilla Monograms 1917" by Bernhard Company, Inc:
Page 3: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.


What is interesting is that there seem to be common variations of these seals across different sources. Most share almost all details with eachother. Sometimes there's no loop at all, sometimes the loop is in a different place, sometimes the "feet" of the A have a slight difference. 

It may well be that the UK company copied the designs from the later editions of the dover books, but until we can confirm that it was designed for those books, and not also copied from an older source, we won't know for sure. There's plenty of reasons why the older editions may not have included the design (while the newer versions do), like space on the page or personal preference of the compiler. It doesn't necessarily mean the design itself is from the late 20th/ early 21st century. 

Another example was interesting to me too. The letter "A" on its own, used by "Anne of Brittany" in 1491! from "Les monogrammes historiques d'après les monuments originaux" by Aglaüs Bouvenne, 1870:
Page 17: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

It's obviously not a proper match at all, but it's clear to see the same-ish sort of design features, like the loop. As this type of loop is very common across sources, perhaps it's an accepted loop variation generally?

From all this truly remarkable and thorough research, I believe I can draw one conclusion: it is not an Italian monogram, nor one used in Italy or by the Catholic Church of Rome, but rather a French or English one, or at least it all points to Northern Europe rather than Southern Europe; but perhaps this is just my guess.

(20-03-2026, 06:50 PM)Fabrizio Salani Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.From all this truly remarkable and thorough research, I believe I can draw one conclusion: it is not an Italian monogram, nor one used in Italy or by the Catholic Church of Rome, but rather a French or English one, or at least it all points to Northern Europe rather than Southern Europe; but perhaps this is just my guess.

Indeed. I found the oldest digitised original of Renoir's work too by the way, as opposed to the english reprint. It is from 1865. 

It's digitised on Gallica as "Collection complète De Chiffres et Monogrammes, par H. Renoir élève de S. Daniel graveur": You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Renoir also released "Chiffres Louis XIV" You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . Archive has it listed as 1865, but another book states that it was actually 1872: 

A machine translation from p92 of this book: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:RENOIR (Henri-Pierre), engraver, designer, heraldist, and monogrammist, was born in Limoges on February 11, 1832. Pupil, son-in-law, and successor of Mr. Samuel Daniel, Renoir is one of the best engravers of our era in the industrial arts engravings in the Louis XIV style and in the industrial arts.
-
This artist published in 1865 a collection of ciphers-monograms. In 1872, another album of ciphers in the Louis XIV style. And finally, in 1875, an album of flourished ciphers.

To my eye, the Louis XIV monograms are more intricate with more flourishes, but aren't drastically different in style, which may be because the same man drew them. But the style of the AG seal is very likely french, in any case.

Renoir does sign himself as "student, son-in-law and successor of Samuel Daniel", who is effectively a ghost online with almost no mention of him. But to be the father-in-law of someone born in 1832, he surely would have been born in either the late 18th or early 19th century.

(13-03-2026, 04:52 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Actually, it looks like the 2004 edition is simply a selection from Renoir (as the angry commenter mentioned), so it likely does not contain our "Design 5", only the similar "Design 1".

(The page layout I can glance in this image is exactly that of Renoir).

Sorry that i'm bumping the thread again but I believe it's important. 

The ebay seller who posted that image also shows another page, which is also identical to the original renoir. 

This is getting slightly interesting, as the ISBN numbers for both the 2004 and 2012 version are the same, which should mean that it's simply a reprint and shouldn't include any difference in content. If the 2004 edition doesn't contain it, the 2012 edition shouldn't either. 

Both versions contain 768 monogram designs in them, with 64 pages. It's very unlikely that they would have put any effort in to replace a design on one of the pages, considering they are lazily (re-re-)reprinting the exact plates from renoir (down to the exact shading). Who would they bother doing that for, and why? As for the CD-ROM, it states in the book that there are 768 images, so there shouldn't be an extra design hiding there either. 

This is looking more and more like a modern redesign by this specific company than an old unknown seal. The only place that it seems to exist is the UK company's website, although only at 25mm size (did they ever supply 0.6 inch/15mm, like the seal?) 

All of the aspects of the design are found in other monograms in the same collection: 

[attachment=14841]
[attachment=14847]

Above is me sloppily attempting a composite of the designs. Note that the top curve of the AG and the right side of AT are too close to eachother. My first instinct is to drop the right side further down, or to straighten the top of the G, which is exactly what we see in our AG seal. Another sloppy attempt by me to lower the AT loop:
[attachment=14846]

A competent individual could blend these designs together with ease, such as someone in a custom seals business.


You could say that this still doesn't prove that it is modern, but I have scoured the internet for every menion of renoir, every collection of monograms, and I haven't come across this exact design once. I have come across most of the others multiple times. Each aspect of the design appears to clearly be in renoir's style, yet renoir never published this design. 

So either: Renoir secretly copied these from a mysterious older source, yet did not publish this specific design, and then the UK company gained access somehow to this hidden, unpublished design. 
or: Renoir designed these monograms, published all of his designs, which were copied by dover multiple times, and the UK company then blended some together in order to bulk out their inventory. 

The only other option is that the UK company copied the blended design from a different source that they did not disclose.

Edit: Or I've missed it somewhere, or it's not online anywhere. Though at some point I have to tell myself that i've searched enough and that it isn't there. Otherwise I would have to search forever on the small hope that it's hiding somewhere. 

Do keep bumping the thread, I'd like to get to the bottom of the mystery some day.

The UK company (I'm going to keep calling them that cause their real name is so generic) has not sold the design before 2013, and they indeed do not make such small stamps. So we know 99% certain that it did not come directly from them. (Besides, the design is not exactly the same).

As to who got what from whom, I do understand that the design can be derived from a "Renoir soup" so to say, in the sense that everything is there. However, the way "Design 5" and the Salani seal combine elements does not look coincidental to me. 

The most logical sequence to me looks like this:
Some designer at some point extends Renoir's catalogue with variations, let's call this Renoir+. The Salani seal is derived from whatever resource Renoir+ is found in. Design 5 is also derived from Renoir+, but makes some additional tweaks.

(24-03-2026, 03:52 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Do keep bumping the thread, I'd like to get to the bottom of the mystery some day.

The UK company (I'm going to keep calling them that cause their real name is so generic) has not sold the design before 2013, and they indeed do not make such small stamps. So we know 99% certain that it did not come directly from them. (Besides, the design is not exactly the same).

As to who got what from whom, I do understand that the design can be derived from a "Renoir soup" so to say, in the sense that everything is there. However, the way "Design 5" and the Salani seal combine elements does not look coincidental to me. 

The most logical sequence to me looks like this:
Some designer at some point extends Renoir's catalogue with variations, let's call this Renoir+. The Salani seal is derived from whatever resource Renoir+ is found in. Design 5 is also derived from Renoir+, but makes some additional tweaks.

I agree, the Salani seal and the UK company seal arent the exact same but far too close to be coincidence imo. 

In terms of the timeline though, a Renoir+ scenario certainly means that the earliest possible date for the seal would be 1865. At that time, wasn't the VMS supposed to be hidden away in a jesuit collection? 

If so, the only time period where the VMS was reasonably available to be copied AND where the seal design may have plausibly existed is from 1912 onwards. So if both the copy and the seal are thought to be contemporaneous, we're likely looking at a 20th/21st century copy (post voynich), unfortunately.

My feeling is that the seal postdates Renoir, in which case you are correct that we'd be looking at a 20th/21st century copy. 

But there are still ways out of it: maybe someone decided to take an ancient parchment with an ancient Voynich copy on it, fold it in half to use it as a binder for other documents and put their seal on it. (Although the analysis of the pigments might rule out this scenario - I've heard conflicting takes on this).

One could also hypothesize that the "Renoir+" design predates Renoir, but I haven't seen any good evidence that this should be the case. At least not by any amount of time that would significantly change the narrative

For it to be pre-renoir, he would have had to have chosen to directly copy and use all of the aspects of that older design in various other monograms, yet never simply copy the design in full. It feels unlikely to me, but not impossible, I guess. He had no problem directly copying and using other seals (such as those from monarchs).

It also assumes that nobody decided to print/publish that design anywhere for over 100 years, then it happened to be found and copied later, which I don't really buy.

(24-03-2026, 04:24 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My feeling is that the seal postdates Renoir, in which case you are correct that we'd be looking at a 20th/21st century copy. 

But there are still ways out of it: maybe someone decided to take an ancient parchment with an ancient Voynich copy on it, fold it in half to use it as a binder for other documents and put their seal on it. (Although the analysis of the pigments might rule out this scenario - I've heard conflicting takes on this).

One could also hypothesize that the "Renoir+" design predates Renoir, but I haven't seen any good evidence that this should be the case. At least not by any amount of time that would significantly change the narrative

I am not an expert in sphragistics but it seems to me, at first glance, that the seal on the parchment is much simpler and less elaborate than Renoir's more graceful versions, and I would see it more at the basis of Renoir's studies than at the end, at least that's my impression.

(24-03-2026, 03:52 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Some designer at some point extends Renoir's catalogue with variations, let's call this Renoir+. The Salani seal is derived from whatever resource Renoir+ is found in. Design 5 is also derived from Renoir+, but makes some additional tweaks.

Going from a printed drawing of a seal to a metal stamp (or a mold for casting the same) is not a simple matter, even with modern machining tools and photographic etching processes.  For one thing, the printed design does not have the depth information needed to make loops cross smoothly over each other.

Therefore, the company must have employed or hired a professional stamp/mold carver to do that.  This person could easily have modified whatever printed design he used as source, to suit his tastes -- while carving the stamp or mold, or making the CAD model for it. 

Indeed he may have modified the design on purpose, so that the company could copyright it if they wanted to -- which they could not do if he had copied the design from a public domain source without any change.

All the best, --stolfi

Another day, another seal. 

I cleaned up the composite and reverse image searched that version instead. I found a different monogram logo that is used by a company. Its likely a different "Renoir+" design. 

[attachment=14889][attachment=14888]

The AG monogram is likely either representative of their current owner, or their great grandfather. I've sent a polite message to them asking for any information they have. If they respond with anything I will post it here.