Palmer And Business Modern Penmanship: Are They The Same?

[idazle]

Hi folks,

 

I'm becoming a convert to cursive monoline. So, following an advice of fellow FPN member and well known caligrapher caliken, I got hold of the PDF version of Modern Business Penmanship by Edward Mill (1903)and started off!! (I'll show you the results later).

 

However I have also come across a second old manual on cursive monoline hand. This the famous Palmer Method of Business Writing, which I had heard of but never seen "in the flesh". I believe this hand and Miller's Business penmanship are almost indistiguishable, aren't they?

 

That is one question. The other is whether all that strict discipline concerning the movement of the arm and the way of holding the pen, as well as all those ovals and straight lines, that seem to be at the core of both methods (Miller and Palmer)are necessary to get a good command of these hands? I've seen some FPNers who beautifully write in this style and wonder if they all have achieved that arm control.

 

Cheers

 

Carlos

Edited January 23, 2013 by idazle

[Mickey]

Welcome to the cursive sect, and let's see if I can give you the Reader Digest answer to some of your questions.

 

A relaxed 'tripod grip' is highly desirable, if not absolutely necessary for decent penmanship. The exact parameters of what constitutes a relaxed tripod grip is open to interpretation. Several threads in the penmanship forum have hashed their way through that question. Do a little searching.

 

The question of arm motion, what it is exactly and whether it is necessary has also been discussed extensively. A search on 'whole arm' should yield several thread to traverse. The condensed (and probably consensus) answer is that pen movement that relies entirely on fingers is not going to yield very satisfactory results.

 

Learning the proper pen movements (and shapes) is essential, so all those circles, oval, loops, and exercises are absolutely necessary. That's how my mornings begin when I am writing and in this I'm far from alone.

 

I'll leave a discussion of the relative merits of those two particular manuals to someone else.

[idazle]

I think I can write better than this, but when I'm writing something to show off I don't relax and end up getting poorer results.

 

Edited January 24, 2013 by idazle

[mboschm]

http://i1148.photobucket.com/albums/o565/mboschm/DSC_0298.jpg

[idazle]

[RLTodd]

I am not seeing the Palmer lower case "r."

My preference is Z-B which does the "r" like the examples above.

[idazle]

I am not seeing the Palmer lower case "r."

My preference is Z-B which does the "r" like the examples above.

 

That's right. I'm following E.C. Mill's Manual, where the "r" is like the one above and not like the Palmer's "r". That's precisely one of the differences between the two Business Modern handwriting systems that I've spotted so far.

 

I've seen writing specimens where the writer uses both "r"s in the same word depending on how the previous letter ends. I cannot do that. My mind cannot be programmed to use two "r"s at the same time, though apparently German people writing with the old Fraktur Script was used to that kind of things.

 

What is Z-B?

[idazle]

Two "r"s in the word "grocery" in this specimen from E.C. Mills' Modern Business Penmanship

 

[schin]

I have another question to add to yours, if you don't mind.

 

If I am correct, Palmer was derived from Spencerian without the shading and frills. In that case, would it be logical to study Palmer first (to get the forms down), and then study Spencerian for the shading, and finally ornamental penmanship for the flourishing?

[Mickey]

I have another question to add to yours, if you don't mind.

 

If I am correct, Palmer was derived from Spencerian without the shading and frills. In that case, would it be logical to study Palmer first (to get the forms down), and then study Spencerian for the shading, and finally ornamental penmanship for the flourishing?

 

I don't see the point. Spencerian letter forms are a result of the strokes (the Principles) and the way in which they combine. Why add in an unnecessary and quite possibly counter-productive step to the process.

 

While it's possible to say that Palmer was derived from Spencerian it is just as easy to say that it degenerated from Spencerian (Spencer for Dummies) or that it was a refinement (new improved Super-Spencer). Who is to say which is more true? The point is, Palmer is not a subset of Spencer, it is a derivative, sharing much with its progenitor but also having its own distinct qualities.

[idazle]

I have another question to add to yours, if you don't mind.

 

If I am correct, Palmer was derived from Spencerian without the shading and frills. In that case, would it be logical to study Palmer first (to get the forms down), and then study Spencerian for the shading, and finally ornamental penmanship for the flourishing?

 

I don't mind. The originating questions have been nearly settled by now.

[mboschm]

http://i1148.photobucket.com/albums/o565/mboschm/20130129100031704.jpg

 

 

That's my $0,02. I guess that it would be "The NEW, MODERN, SUPER-FAST, Spencerian!".

BTW, I apologise for the lack of an "e" in "use".

[gawain3]

I think I can write better than this, but when I'm writing something to show off I don't relax and end up getting poorer results.

 

 

Great handwriting. There is a consistency with shape, spacing, etc. that I have not yet reached. More practice for me today.

[Unky]

Z-B is Zanner-Bloser handwriting.

[caliken]

As far as I can see, Business Writing is basically unshaded Spencerian and "Palmer's Method" utilises the same script, fundamentally, but with great emphasis on "muscular movement". In fact, Palmer didn't countenance any other opinion on this physical aspect of handwriting, and was quite dictatorial in his views ....

 

"The instructions are more important than the copies. They will tell you how to develop and use the muscular movement in writing. If you do not follow the instructions, you will fail. Pupils who follow absolutely the Palmer Method plan have always learned to write well. Pupils who have not first studied the plainly printed directions and followed them absolutely, have partly or completely failed."

 

Woe betide anyone who strays from the path!

 

If, as a mere European, I am wrong in my views of these specifically American styles of writing, please correct me.

 

 

Ken

Edited February 19, 2013 by caliken

[Mickey]

As far as I can see, Business Writing is basically unshaded Spencerian and "Palmer's Method" utilises the same script, fundamentally, but with great emphasis on "muscular movement". In fact, Spencer didn't countenance any other opinion on this physical aspect of handwriting, and was quite dictatorial in his views ....

 

"The instructions are more important than the copies. They will tell you how to develop and use the muscular movement in writing. If you do not follow the instructions, you will fail. Pupils who follow absolutely the Palmer Method plan have always learned to write well. Pupils who have not first studied the plainly printed directions and followed them absolutely, have partly or completely failed."

 

Woe betide anyone who strays from the path!

 

If, as a mere European, I am wrong in my views of these specifically American styles of writing, please correct me.

 

 

Ken

 

I assume you meant to type Palmer (or Spencer?) in both the emboldened (my emphasis) words above. Regarding the statement itself, it is difficult to know, without accompanyihng criteria, what 'partly or completely failed' means. This could be a quite reasonable statement, the criteria being some unstated quality at some unstated speed acquired with some unstated amount of effort, but it is probably not. From my own experience teaching classical voice, there are some pedagogies, which if not followed precisely, confer no value whatsoever. Indeed, they ingrain new bad habits. That this is so, and often quite obviously so, has not deterred generations of would be singers from performing them incorrectly ad nauseum. (The method described in Madam Marchesi's book is one such.)

 

As for your being a mere European, your ancestors, though French, saw the light and came to the more enlightened, if rather less sunny climes of Scotland and formed a clan. That they chose not to be mere Europeans should be enough to absolve you of any taint or residual sense of guilt.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Mickey

[caliken]

Thanks for the correction, Mickey. I've amended my post.

 

Ken

Edited February 19, 2013 by caliken

[caliken]

As for your being a mere European, your ancestors, though French, saw the light and came to the more enlightened, if rather less sunny climes of Scotland and formed a clan. That they chose not to be mere Europeans should be enough to absolve you of any taint or residual sense of guilt.

I was being facetious! :ltcapd:

 

With an English mother and a Scottish father, I have no particular nationalistic leanings and am happy to consider myself British (or European).

 

Ken

[caliken]

As for your being a mere European, your ancestors, though French, saw the light and came to the more enlightened, if rather less sunny climes of Scotland and formed a clan. That they chose not to be mere Europeans should be enough to absolve you of any taint or residual sense of guilt.

I was being facetious! :ltcapd:

 

With an English mother and a Scottish father, I have no particular nationalistic leanings and am happy to consider myself British (or European).

 

Ken