Fabrizio Salani > 20-03-2026, 06:50 PM
(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?
eggyk > 23-03-2026, 03:25 PM
(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.
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.
eggyk > 24-03-2026, 03:28 PM
(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).
Koen G > 24-03-2026, 03:52 PM
eggyk > 24-03-2026, 04:15 PM
(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.
Koen G > 24-03-2026, 04:24 PM
eggyk > 24-03-2026, 04:43 PM
Fabrizio Salani > 24-03-2026, 07:00 PM
(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
Jorge_Stolfi > 24-03-2026, 09:08 PM
(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.
eggyk > Yesterday, 05:14 PM