The origin of Fabrizio Salani's "AG" monagram

[Koen G]

(I post this thread here, so it can be easily located in the same subforum as the other thread).

I've been doing some digging on the origin of the monogram on the mystery parchment, and after some dead ends, I now believe we should be able to find a printed source. I need a new thread though, since this is a lot to explain and it may require its own investigation.

Tavi found a UK company "Custom Wax N Seals", which offers this design in one of their monogram stamps. I decided to email them, although apparently Fabrizio has been in contact with them before. I received a very polite and helpful response:

• This design has not been ordered from the company in or before 2013, so the stamp on the parchment definitely did not come from them.
  
• They got the design from a book: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., published by Dover in 2004. I see that there is also You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
• I was unable to look inside this book, but one of the angry commenters mentioned that is is basically the same as You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., also published by Dover in 1970.
  
• This 1970 publication includes the "Unabridged republication of Monograms and Ciphers by H. Renoir, published by A. Fullarton and Company, London and Edinburgh, 1870-74."
  
• It is in this Renoir book that the more angular version of the monogram is found (Style 1 of the UK store). Our exact style (5) is not there.
  

   

Some interesting things to note:

• All are clearly related.
  
• The Salani seal is closer overall to the UK "style 5".
  
• However, the Renoir monogram letters overlap in the same order as those of the seal.
  

Therefore, it seems likely that the design of the seal originated after Renoir's publication, but independently from its adoption by the UK company.

It is very likely that the exact seal we're looking for is featured in one of these Dover publications. Since the UK company referred me to the 2004 edition, this or the 2012 edition may be worth tracking down.

[Koen G]

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).

   

[LisaFaginDavis]

Fantastic research, Koen!

[eggyk]

Therefore, it seems likely that the design of the seal originated after Renoir's publication, but independently from its adoption by the UK company.

It is very likely that the exact seal we're looking for is featured in one of these Dover publications. Since the UK company referred me to the 2004 edition, this or the 2012 edition may be worth tracking down.

For whatever it's worth, the seal for "AD" from renoir features the rounded loop seen in the UK "AG" version. Maybe at some point they expanded or blended the designs. 

   

[Fabrizio Salani]

[quote='Koen G' pid='81322' dateline='1773413944']
Therefore, it seems likely that the design of the seal originated after Renoir's publication, but independently from its adoption by the UK company.

It is very likely that the exact seal we're looking for is featured in one of these Dover publications. Since the UK company referred me to the 2004 edition, this or the 2012 edition may be worth tracking down.

For whatever it's worth, the seal for "AD" from renoir features the rounded loop seen in the UK "AG" version. Maybe at some point they expanded or blended the designs. 

In 2016/2017 I don't remember exactly, a sphragistics expert from the State Archives in Rome told me that the monogram could recall the monograms used in the Victorian era, but these were more elaborate in the "serifs" of the character because in 1800 there was an attempt to embellish the initials in a Baroque style, but the origin of the Victorian monograms was from the 18th - 17th century (the latter less likely) and the one on the parchment seems much more similar to a simple, basic, "ad personam" monogram made for a ring or a chain pendant being only 1.5 cm in diameter.

[Fabrizio Salani]

Therefore, it seems likely that the design of the seal originated after Renoir's publication, but independently from its adoption by the UK company.

It is very likely that the exact seal we're looking for is featured in one of these Dover publications. Since the UK company referred me to the 2004 edition, this or the 2012 edition may be worth tracking down.

For whatever it's worth, the seal for "AD" from renoir features the rounded loop seen in the UK "AG" version. Maybe at some point they expanded or blended the designs. 

I found the 1970 edition, but it features exactly the 1870 edition, plus other authors with different monograms. Now we must ask ourselves where Henri Renoir drew inspiration for the monograms: whether it was a collection, a fantasy, or modifications of existing monograms. I haven't been able to find any information on this, especially since it's always cited as a collection.
                   

[Koen G]

Ah yes, it is just the same Renoir collection, which Dover likes to republish every now and then.

The AG on the wax seal really sits in between Design 1 (=Renoir) and Design 5. 

Common with Design 1:

• little cap on top of "G"
  
• order of overlap
  

Common with Design 2:

• Top of A
  
• Single-lobed bites out of G
  
• Rounded loop.
  

   

In short, the wax seal is very close to Design 5, but maintains more properties of Renoir (Design 1). This leads me to hypothesize that the design of the stamp used to make the wax seal was post-Renoir, and closely related to Design 5. But everything remains possible - maybe both Renoir and Design 5 are based on an older seal.

[Jorge_Stolfi]

In short, the wax seal is very close to Design 5, but maintains more properties of Renoir (Design 1).

Indeed. 

This leads me to hypothesize that the design of the stamp used to make the wax seal was post-Renoir, and closely related to Design 5. But everything remains possible - maybe both Renoir and Design 5 are based on an older seal.

I suppose that the seal maker had their own designer, who extracted Design 5 from the book and edited by adding the much-needed serifs.

All the best, --stolfi

[Koen G]

But design 5 is not in the book. It is only found on the UK company's website.

[eggyk]

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?