Learning Spencerian...

[Wcwilson]

Thanks for the suggestion. They've added it. I had printed the various guidesheets on IAMPETH, and put my protractor to them, and they weren't at the 52 degrees recommended in my Key to Practical Penmanship. I had see the ones with the various sizes, 2.5, 3, 4, 4.5, etc. and was practicing with the 4 mm size. I'll drop down to 3 and see how that does.

[Mickey]

Thanks for the suggestion. They've added it. I had printed the various guidesheets on IAMPETH, and put my protractor to them, and they weren't at the 52 degrees recommended in my Key to Practical Penmanship. I had see the ones with the various sizes, 2.5, 3, 4, 4.5, etc. and was practicing with the 4 mm size. I'll drop down to 3 and see how that does.

 

Start with the larger X-heights. You'll probably get a better start that way. I simply mentioned the x-height (2.5mm) which has been the best compromise for my needs, which are not calligraphic.

[fuchsiaprincess]

OK, I'm on the bandwagon as well

 

I copied out what is called "Ladies' Hand" from a book called "Ames'Compendium of Practical and Ornamental Penmanship" (what a mouthful for a title!) on a grid downloaded from the IAMPETH site. Unfortunately, it is still very much like Copperplate, although I tried to heed Ken's advice to Salman about the differences between Copperplate and Spencerian.

 

What I have noticed is that the grid as a more acute slant compared to Copperplate (55 degrees in Copperplate vs. 41 degrees in Spencerian). Is that correct? This is just me measuring the grids with my protractor.

 

I find this script both easier and more difficult compared to Copperplate. Easier, because it seems more free-flowing and less rigid; harder because I keep returning to my Copperplate mode and have to consciously 'switch it off'.

 

If one has to follow one book, which one would you guys recommend?

 

http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y331/fuchsiaprincess/LadiesHand.jpg

[caliken]

If one has to follow one book, which one would you guys recommend?

Soki,

 

For a book on the subject, I would recommend "Learning to Write Spencerian Script"

by Michael Sull. This is a densely-packed, highly-informative book which covers every aspect of the script. As far as I know, there is no competition in print, at the moment. Of course, IAMPETH is the home of Spencerian, and a bit of digging there will reveal all the information you need.

 

You will always find "rouge" examples, but the general concensus seems to be that Copperplate is best written at a slope of 55 degrees from the horizontal and Spencerian at 52 degrees.

 

With the greatest respect, I think that your problem with the transition is largely one of perception. You have been studying Copperplate recently, and you're probably having difficulty in visualising the Spencerian letter shapes (which are quite different), in your head. As a result your example above, as you rightly say, has materialised as a variation of Copperplate!

 

I suggest that you take a leaf out of Salman's book. At the moment, he's following the same path of starting out with Spencerian, having just studied Copperplate. If you look at his example posted earlier in this thread, you'll see the progress he's making with basic exercises. The letter shapes will be gradually impressing themselves in his mind, and he'll soon be able to write both styles independently without any conscious effort, just as linguists can switch instantly from one language to another without ever becoming confused.

 

As ever, there is no short cut. If you look at every instruction book on the subject they all start with basic exercises - what fun!

 

Ken

[smk]

Sniper - it'll be great to have you here. Looking forward to your exercise sheet.

 

Ah Soki - I'm so excited to see you join in. We'll learn another hand together. I'm currently working on the basic strokes shown at the top of this page. It has helped me get started.

 

Wcwilson, good to have you on board. I'm looking forward to having you with us.

 

I have not had a chance to practice the past couple of days but am looking forward to working on my Spencerian a bit tonight. I'll be posting another example in a couple of days.

 

Salman

Edited January 2, 2012 by smk

[Mickey]

If one has to follow one book, which one would you guys recommend?

Soki,

 

For a book on the subject, I would recommend "Learning to Write Spencerian Script"

by Michael Sull. This is a densely-packed, highly-informative book which covers every aspect of the script. As far as I know, there is no competition in print, at the moment. Of course, IAMPETH is the home of Spencerian, and a bit of digging there will reveal all the information you need.

 

You will always find "rouge" examples, but the general concensus seems to be that Copperplate is best written at a slope of 55 degrees from the horizontal and Spencerian at 52 degrees.

 

 

I agree the Michael Sull book is quite excellent. (I haven't met Michael yet, but I have spoken with him on the telephone and he is a very kind, helpful gentleman.)

 

Ken, please correct me if I'm wrong, but what seems to be underplayed in most of the Spencerian texts I've seen is reference to the hand's strong secondary angle of about 30 degrees, which, for lack of a better word, I would call the join angle. Where the natural 'gravity' of Copperplate is for upstrokes to return on the slant angle (55 degrees), the tendency in Spencerian is for them to stall out at the 30 degree angle. It's pretty obvious in letters like the 'n', the bottom surface of the ovals, and in the joins. It is from this repeated march from 52 to 30 degrees that Spencerian gains its forward momentum, airy quality, and broad spacing when compared to Copperplate. Where Copperplate derives its static balance from its symmetry, Spencerian achieves a dynamic balance, a sense of linear inevitability, based on this asymmetry.

 

This may be related to an earlier discussion we had regarding balance in round hand (pre-Bickham), versus Copperplate symmetry.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Mickey

[kensuguro]

just dropping in. I've been hard at spencerian for about a month, still adjusting to get the "arm writing" thing right. I got to a point where letters were starting to shape up, but realized that I was using the palm too much, and returned to ground zero with the better form but with wiggly lines.

 

I just ordered Michael Sull's Learning to Write Spencerian. We'll see how that goes. For me it's hard enough to get a consistent line while doing the arm thing so it's really just lines and circles right now.

[caliken]

Ken, please correct me if I'm wrong, but what seems to be underplayed in most of the Spencerian texts I've seen is reference to the hand's strong secondary angle of about 30 degrees, which, for lack of a better word, I would call the join angle. Where the natural 'gravity' of Copperplate is for upstrokes to return on the slant angle (55 degrees), the tendency in Spencerian is for them to stall out at the 30 degree angle. It's pretty obvious in letters like the 'n', the bottom surface of the ovals, and in the joins. It is from this repeated march from 52 to 30 degrees that Spencerian gains its forward momentum, airy quality, and broad spacing when compared to Copperplate. Where Copperplate derives its static balance from its symmetry, Spencerian achieves a dynamic balance, a sense of linear inevitability, based on this asymmetry.

Mickey, I think that you're absolutely correct. This is just one of the many differences between the two styles.

This illustration may help to highlight this.

 

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd289/caliken_2007/FPNnew900.jpg

 

These two examples (Copperplate on top) were written at the same time with the same Hunt 101 nib and at the same minuscule x height. There is no substitute for direct comparison!

 

Immediately obvious is your point concerning the Spencerian ligatures.

 

With the minuscules, in Copperpate all straight lines have parallel shaded strokes at the same width throughout a piece if writing and every downstroke is shaded.

The exact opposite applies with Spencerian where straight parallel strokes are non-existent, and apparently

random shaded strokes are always swelled and never of even width. Even the shaded downstroke of the letter t is tapered.

 

With the single exception of the nib used, Copperplate and Spencerian are entirely different. Just look at the way the letter e in "pen" is formed, for example.

 

These two enlargements of the letters n which were taken from the above example, show just how different the two styles are!

 

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd289/caliken_2007/FPNn300.jpg

 

Ken

Edited January 3, 2012 by caliken

[fuchsiaprincess]

If one has to follow one book, which one would you guys recommend?

Soki,

 

For a book on the subject, I would recommend "Learning to Write Spencerian Script"

by Michael Sull. This is a densely-packed, highly-informative book which covers every aspect of the script. As far as I know, there is no competition in print, at the moment. Of course, IAMPETH is the home of Spencerian, and a bit of digging there will reveal all the information you need.

 

You will always find "rouge" examples, but the general concensus seems to be that Copperplate is best written at a slope of 55 degrees from the horizontal and Spencerian at 52 degrees.

 

With the greatest respect, I think that your problem with the transition is largely one of perception. You have been studying Copperplate recently, and you're probably having difficulty in visualising the Spencerian letter shapes (which are quite different), in your head. As a result your example above, as you rightly say, has materialised as a variation of Copperplate!

 

I suggest that you take a leaf out of Salman's book. At the moment, he's following the same path of starting out with Spencerian, having just studied Copperplate. If you look at his example posted earlier in this thread, you'll see the progress he's making with basic exercises. The letter shapes will be gradually impressing themselves in his mind, and he'll soon be able to write both styles independently without any conscious effort, just as linguists can switch instantly from one language to another without ever becoming confused.

 

As ever, there is no short cut. If you look at every instruction book on the subject they all start with basic exercises - what fun!

 

Ken

 

Dear Ken,

 

You are absolutely correct! I shall procure a copy of Michael Sull's book and start from basics with this beautiful script.

 

Warm regards,

Soki

 

PS - I was just surprised that the 'rogue' grid came from IAMPETH's site!

Edited January 2, 2012 by fuchsiaprincess

[fuchsiaprincess]

Sniper - it'll be great to have you here. Looking forward to your exercise sheet.

 

Ah Soki - I'm so excited to see you join in. We'll learn another hand together. I'm currently working on the basic strokes shown at the top of this page. It has helped me get started.

 

Wcwilson, good to have you on board. I'm looking forward to having you with us.

 

I have not had a chance to practice the past couple of days but am looking forward to working on my Spencerian a bit tonight. I'll be posting another example in a couple of days.

 

Salman

 

 

Thank you very much for the lessons, Salman! Here's to learning another beautiful script together!

 

Warm regards,

Soki

[caliken]

I was just surprised that the 'rogue' grid came from IAMPETH's site!

Yes, I agree that this is a surprise - but I think that you'll find that almost all reliable sources on Spencerian script, advocate a slope angle of 52 degres from the horizontal.

 

Ken

[kensuguro]

I keep seeing the guide sheet (grid) from IAMPETH, but don't see it on their site.. is it a members only thing?

 

edit:

oops, nevermind, didn't realize guidelines was a section on its own. Though i have a question. The consensus seems like Spencerian is supposed to have a default slope of 52 degrees and a forward slant of 30 degrees, just like in the Spencer's New Writing book on IAMPETH. (http://www.iampeth.com/lessons/spencerian/new_standard/spencer_new_standard_page0.html)

 

I downloaded IAMPETH's grid sheet to put under my regular writing paper as a guide, only to find that their slope line felt very steep for a default slope, and yet too open for the forward slope. I went into photoshop and drew a line right on top of their line, and rotated it 'till it was flat and guess what, it's 45 degrees. Same for the smaller lined page and the larger lined page. Is this some sort of mistake? Or is there a school of Spencerian that uses 45 degrees as default slope?

 

Apart from measuring, I made 4 mirrors of the (supposedly) 45 degree angle and it did create a perpendicular X.

Edited January 3, 2012 by kensuguro

[fuchsiaprincess]

Ken, please correct me if I'm wrong, but what seems to be underplayed in most of the Spencerian texts I've seen is reference to the hand's strong secondary angle of about 30 degrees, which, for lack of a better word, I would call the join angle. Where the natural 'gravity' of Copperplate is for upstrokes to return on the slant angle (55 degrees), the tendency in Spencerian is for them to stall out at the 30 degree angle. It's pretty obvious in letters like the 'n', the bottom surface of the ovals, and in the joins. It is from this repeated march from 52 to 30 degrees that Spencerian gains its forward momentum, airy quality, and broad spacing when compared to Copperplate. Where Copperplate derives its static balance from its symmetry, Spencerian achieves a dynamic balance, a sense of linear inevitability, based on this asymmetry.

Mickey, I think that you're absolutely correct. This is just one of the many differences between the two styles.

This illustration may help to highlight this.

 

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd289/caliken_2007/FPNnew900.jpg

 

These two examples (Copperplate on top) were written at the same time with the same Hunt 101 nib and at the same minuscule x height. There is no substitute for direct comparison!

 

Immediately obvious is your point concerning the Spencerian ligatures.

 

With the minuscules, in Copperpate all straight lines have parallel shaded strokes at the same width throughout a piece if writing and every downstroke is shaded.

The exact opposite applies with Spencerian where straight parallel strokes are non-existent, and apparently

random shaded strokes are always swelled and never of even width. Even the shaded downstroke of the letter t is tapered.

 

With the single exception of the nib used, Copperplate and Spencerian are entirely different. Just look at the way the letter e in "pen" is formed, for example.

 

These two enlargements of the letters n which were taken from the above example, show just how different the two styles are!

 

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd289/caliken_2007/FPNn300.jpg

 

Ken

 

Thank you so much for the comparison example, Ken!

 

Regards,

Soki

[caliken]

I downloaded IAMPETH's grid sheet to put under my regular writing paper as a guide, only to find that their slope line felt very steep for a default slope, and yet too open for the forward slope. I went into photoshop and drew a line right on top of their line, and rotated it 'till it was flat and guess what, it's 45 degrees. Same for the smaller lined page and the larger lined page. Is this some sort of mistake? Or is there a school of Spencerian that uses 45 degrees as default slope?

 

 

This is most peculiar. I've had a look at the Spencerian Guidelines 1 & 2 under the "Guide Sheets" and have come to much the same conclusion as yourself. I measured them at a slope of 47 degrees from the horizontal; you find them to be 45 degrees - either way, they're nowhere near the conventional 52 degrees. As you pointed out, the slope angle in the "Spencers' New Standard Writing" book is given as 52 degrees.

 

Perhaps if someone from IAMPETH reads this thread, they may shed some light on the situation.

Incidentally, Michael Sull in his "Learning to Write Spencerian Script" book, gives 52 degrees as the slope angle.

 

Ken

[Mickey]

 

Perhaps if someone from IAMPETH reads this thread, they may shed some light on the situation.

Incidentally, Michael Sull in his "Learning to Write Spencerian Script" book, gives 52 degrees as the slope angle.

 

Ken

 

I just compared the guide sheets Michael Sull sells (a few were part of a copy pad I received from him) with the those on the IAMPETH site. The slant on the Sull guide sheets are more upright, i.e., the 52 degrees recommended by the Spencers and by Mr. Sull.

[sniper910]

it's a good thing i just started, since i was using the grid sheet from iampeth as well. does anyone know where there is a printable practice sheet with the correct slope? i also put my sheet under and use the guidelines

[Wcwilson]

The last two guidesheets on IAMPETH are labeled as being 52 degrees. I haven't check with my protractor, but was very glad I ordered the practice kit Mickey recommended the other day. Here is a link to IAMPETH guidesheets. http://www.iampeth.com/lessons/guidesheets/2.4mm_52deg_lines.pdf

 

Wade

[Mickey]

The last two guidesheets on IAMPETH are labeled as being 52 degrees. I haven't check with my protractor, but was very glad I ordered the practice kit Mickey recommended the other day. Here is a link to IAMPETH guidesheets. http://www.iampeth.c...52deg_lines.pdf

 

Wade

 

The slant on this linked page appears correct. As a guide sheet under the actual working page, it should be fine. (I think it's too cluttered to write on directly.)

 

Added: The guide sheet above also agrees with exemplars on the IAMPETH site from Madarasz, Zaner, Lupfer, and L. P. Spencer.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Mickey

[kensuguro]

I can probably write one in flash that allows you to control all aspects of the grid and spits out a pdf. I saw the one linked from IAMPETH but that one's more about spacing and has no slant right? or did I miss it.

[Mickey]

I can probably write one in flash that allows you to control all aspects of the grid and spits out a pdf. I saw the one linked from IAMPETH but that one's more about spacing and has no slant right? or did I miss it.

 

I use the generator you found and, while useful, it doesn't provide slant. Being able to dial in slant lines would be very handy.