Spencerian: Controlled Speed?

[Iso*]

As for nib choice, I can concur that it is a personal matter. I write with a very light hand, and I can't vary my pressure that much, so I need to use a pen that has a lot of flex.

I am a left hander, so I have some degree of freedom in my nib choice... as for inks, higgins eternal seems to work well, though I have created my own ink by diluting the ink all the way down to 40% and then blending a small amount of dry walnut ink, mainly because higgin's eternal has a slight purple/blue tint (probably just my own bottle). Plus, it adds some character to my ink, something thats not too easily described, but its a slight improvement overall in all areas.

 

As for holders, I use a straight holder, good obliques can be obtained through Brian Smith of Unique Obliques on ETSY.

Ornamental penmanship is the first and only script I practice. I devote all my time to it, and I indulge in no other scripts if they do not supplement my skill in OP.

[Mickey]

  On 7/31/2014 at 6:38 PM, TXKat said:

Please, PLEASE don't stop. I'm reading with facination as this is something I would love to become proficient at, but I first have to get one of those odd holders and figure out the "write" nib for it so I can learn and practice properly!! Also, do certain inks work better than others for OP??

 

Anyone with suggestions?

 

Following this thread.

 

Ink is a discussion unto itself. Various Japanese stick inks probably produce the finest hairlines. (Properly diluted Moon Palace Sumi ink comes close.) McCaffery's Penman Black is probably the most popular ink for OP. Higgins Eternal is okay for practice. (My post in this thread was done with Higgins.) Unadulterated FP is not really suitable.

[EFP]

Thank you for bringing attention to Spencerian. I love the flourish ~ nothing to contribute from personal experience but I have a fondness for the drawings.

 

My avatar is Spencerian apparently, the scrolls are amazing to me.

 

 

I don't mean to go off topic, just wanted to say I am a fan and will be reading along.

[Mickey]

Speed (and its close kin, rhythm), I believe, also plays an important role in the minuscules. Consequently, controlled speed also plays (or can play) an important role in the business hands.

 

For today, let's consider the letter 'l' and all it's kin, i.e., any letter with a 2x-height or greater loop. The right arm of the loop is gracefully curved, whereas the left side is nearly straight until it reaches the writing line. (The opposite is true for descender loops.) If we follow our rule that the faster the pen moves, the straighter the line will appear*, the left side stroke should be faster than the right side stroke. As part of my practice today, I made a point of slowing down the upstrokes and speeding up the downstrokes. Lo and behold, the letter forms improved. (With the faster downstrokes, I did have to practice not shading the down strokes.)

 

I applied the same principle to the letter 'f' and observed that the time expended for the first upstroke was almost exactly the same as for the entire downstroke. The second upstroke took a similar amount of time. Thus, 'f' became a 3 beat letter, up down, up. Oddly enough under this regime, I found it easier to apply the shade to only the bottom half of the down stroke.

 

Give it a try and let me know how it goes.

 

 

* Since rate of curvature is constant over time, equal length arcs from circles written at different linear velocities will not be equally curved. Arcs from faster circles (larger diameter) will be straighter.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Mickey

[Mickey]

Here's the thought for the day. Again, as proof of concept, I attempted to make a quasi Spencer majuscule using segments of circles taken from a template. The result is not all that handsome, but I think it might illustrate what I've been trying to explain in this thread. Here the first version.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This thing was constructed from arcs taken from 8 circles of varying diameters. Remember, speed equals diameter, so moving from one diameter to another is simply a matter of changing speed. If the acceleration is smooth, the individual segments will meld. So, erasing the overlaps and even without smoothing the transitions yield this...

 

 

Not the most beautiful Z I've ever seen, but I think it might just be close enough to make the point

Edited August 7, 2014 by Mickey

[DrakaTaarn]

An interesting idea.

I try to use a combination of Spencerian/Palmer (of course customized to my tastes) in my everyday handwriting, and Italic if I have the nib.

[Lyander0012]

As I'm already beginning to make something of a proper study of flex writing (with a fountain pen rather than a pen staff, though), the content of this thread is very much useful. I've noticed that even without prompting, I tend to speed up during large flourishes or shaded strokes, which probably has something to do with my enjoying the sensation of flex (not to mention not wanting ink to pool up too much, and risk fattening upstrokes).

 

It stands to reason that tighter, more sharply curved loops would require one to slow down in order to execute then properly; it'd take an inhuman, or perhaps merely superhuman, sense of precision and hand control to be able to execute those at speed.

 

In all, I find that this thread manages to make a compelling argument in favour of practising basic forms and shades, as those need to be executed at a faster rate in order to get the proper "feel" for writing flex.

[Mickey]

  On 8/8/2014 at 5:56 AM, Lyander0012 said:

As I'm already beginning to make something of a proper study of flex writing (with a fountain pen rather than a pen staff, though), the content of this thread is very much useful. I've noticed that even without prompting, I tend to speed up during large flourishes or shaded strokes, which probably has something to do with my enjoying the sensation of flex (not to mention not wanting ink to pool up too much, and risk fattening upstrokes).

 

It stands to reason that tighter, more sharply curved loops would require one to slow down in order to execute then properly; it'd take an inhuman, or perhaps merely superhuman, sense of precision and hand control to be able to execute those at speed.

 

In all, I find that this thread manages to make a compelling argument in favour of practising basic forms and shades, as those need to be executed at a faster rate in order to get the proper "feel" for writing flex.

 

I'm pleased you're finding this thread interesting, but I'm not sure you're quite getting what I'm saying here, yet. (Pardon me. I'm still trying to refine the message. Your post helps.) First, you don't so slow down so you are able to create tighter curves, rather, slowing down creates the tighter curves. (Remember, the pen turns at a constant rate.*) Second, the 2 immediate goals of this approach are to develop a regular, sustainable circular motion and smooth pen velocity changes. Forms will mostly take care of themselves. An exemplar (whether a basic shape or complete letter) is less a goal than a tool to guide skill acquisition.

 

Speed, per se, is not a goal. Regularity is. The circular motion needs to be uniform, regardless of pen speed. Find a rotation you can maintain. As you become more proficient, your working speed will increase on its own. The emphasis should first be on the performance (the ductus) of the letter or shape and only secondarily on the letter or shape produced.

 

BTW, don't worry about shades. About half my practice these days is done with a pencil - regularity and smoothness, first!

 

* For example, the letter Z in post 25 is constructed of 3 1/2 circles. If written, rather than drafted, the circles would all take exactly the same time to trace.

[Mickey]

Here's an observation from today's practice session: a pen under pressure resists change. This seems obvious, but have you considered all the ways in which this might be true? (One quick reminder before we go on; Spencerian shades are curved, not straight*.)

 

1) Consider the principle stem - if we accept the ideas that its s-curve shape is the result of counter-clockwise rotation suddenly shifting to clockwise rotation, what happens then when we apply pressure for the shade? Answer: friction slows the pen, causing the curvature to increase. (Remember, the rate of rotation is constant.) Here's the S from post #2.

 

 

The shade begins as 5, the pen slows, the curve tightens. Midway between 5 and 6, the pressure on the point reduces; the shade tapers and the pen accelerates: the curve opens. Get what I'm saying?

 

2) Preloading the point, thickens the line, makes starting shades more difficult, and makes smooth curves difficult to achieve.

 

a).The first part of this is obvious: spread tines produce fatter lines.

 

b. The third part is nearly as obvious, two points act like a rudder. If the spread is asymmetrical (more pressure on one tine), the pens turns; if the spread is symmetrical, the pen will resist changes in direction. (As asymmetry increase, curves tighten.)

 

c. The second part is perhaps more complicated. In general, the farther apart the tines are, the more they will resist being further spread; they are springs, after all. This would not be a problem if the pressure was not also being transmitted to the page (making the tines a more effective rudder). So, resistance to further spreading is not only provided by the stiffness of the steel, but also the pressure applied to the page. Ergo: a nib will act 'stiffer' (more resistant to change) if preloaded (by weight of hand) to the point where the line begins to thicken; a relatively stiff nib will be more flexible in a light hand.

 

One final note: at point 5 on the S figure above, the pressure must be as low as possible, otherwise the change of rotational direction will be disrupted, distorting the following curve. (The shade will also begin too soon.) The near instantaneous change of rotation in this subtle s-curve is only possible because the unloaded nib is traveling almost in a straight line.

 

Th...th...that's all folks. (For now)

 

* Actually, nothing is straight in Spencerian except the writing line.

[Mickey]

Another thought from the day's warmup: (This seems to have turned into a blog of sorts.)

 

While I still believe that beginners are well advised to begin their studies with relatively firm points (e.g., Hunt 56, Esterbrook 358, Gillott 404), the sort of writing portrayed in this thread, however, is best pursued with sharper, more flexible points. This is not entirely a reversal of position for me. I still prefer the E. 128, 358, and such for general writing, but, for my admittedly shallow delving into the realm of OP, I'm finding the more dangerous points (e.g., Gillott 303, Principal, Brause Rose) are an absolute must.

 

Flinching, I believe, comes in two broad categories. There is the beginner's flinch, a product of unstable hand movement (in the vertical plane, particularly) AND excessive pressure. For many raw beginners (I would have included myself in this category), a direct, simultaneous assault on both aspects of the problem is frustrating and unproductive. The more flexible nibs present too large a technical barrier. For me, going to a stiffer point (e.g., Hunt 56) raised the pressure threshold high enough that I could stabilize my hand movement, which, in turn, allowed me eventually to lower the pressure to that point where opting for more flexible points became feasible.

 

In my recent explorations, (i.e., this thread) I discovered that the sort of rotational motion I propose here is more easily disrupted (flinch type II) when using stiffer points (e.g., E. 358) than with more flexible points (E. 357 or Principal). From this, I concluded that practicing the sort of penmanship described here requires a much lighter touch (and higher pen velocity), which the less flexible points do not enforce nor particularly encourage.

 

Today, my warm-up/ practice session was performed with a Hunt 101 and a Brause 76*, both of which were much more fun to wield than I had remembered. (Nothing succeeds like success.) I still had the occasional snag (not that many), but far fewer unattractive shapes. The arcs and ellipses were more consistent, shades were deeper and more properly curved. This seems to me a more than fair tradeoff.

 

Oh, I'll still use 358s for day to day writing (if now with an even lighter touch), but from now on, my morning warm-ups and explorations into the world OP will find more flexible points in my holder.

 

* I've never had problems with snags using the 76, but have never before been able to get decent hairlines from it. Halke, halke seems to be the answer. (Softly, softly)

Edited August 20, 2014 by Mickey

[Lyander0012]

Not so much haunted, I believe. The concepts described herein require some minimum level of critical thought process, and my work (first job, so it's a fairly banal entry-level task I'm relegated to) drains me of the mental capacity to do more than go about my daily life— eating, breathing, and practicing with a flex fountain pen on a wobbly table (which I despise) at work. Days off are usually reserved for family :/

Anyway, I'll just say that I've been taking speed into account as well in my flex practice nowadays. I don't know how to describe it, exactly, but as earlier discussed large flourishes are impossible to execute correctly at anything but fast speed; going slow makes for pronounced wobbles and fuzzier shades. Then again, the moderate rigidity of the nib I have may have something to do with that. I want to try a wet noodle FP, haha.

 

I'll update this reply with my meagre contributions over the weekend, perhaps, when my mind's less preoccupied with meaningless (relatively speaking) statistics and whatnot. Suffice to say for now that there is a certain element of momentum and inertia to it, and of course, extensively practicing the proper forms such that lines are formed "correctly", if at varying sizes.

 

 

Regards,

Kevin

[Mickey]

I'm glad to see folks are still following this thread. Here are some thoughts from this morning's practice session. The target today is a problematic pair of minuscules, the i and e. They are problematic because, in Spencerian and its kin, it is entirely too easy for a quickly penned e to turn into a blobby i. Let start by noting that today I'll be carrying the perpetually circling pen notion into the realm of the minuscule. If we apply the proposed rule - curvature is constant, the straighter the line segment, the faster the point velocity - the upstroke of both letters must be the slower stroke. I know this may not be how you've been doing it (I wasn't) but I'd like you consider adopting this practice. It will pay dividends.

 

Now on to the i and e! The only difference between the two letters is that the pen point halts at the top of the i. Notice, I did not say the pen stops. Point direction continues changing at it's inexorable rate and, when it's arrow is pointed back down the slant line, the down stroke is initiated. Here are the strokes: leisurely upstroke, pause, quicker downstroke. With the e, the pen does not stop at the top, it slows down. Again, because the circular motion continues (still counter-clockwise) the slowly moving point writes a small, tight loop. As with the i, when the arrow of direction coincides with the slant line, the downstroke begins, i.e., the pen suddenly accelerates. It's all speed control. The only difference between an i and an e is the top of the i is a stop and the top of the e is a slow down. That's it, and they should take exactly the same time to write, since the time required for their execution is governed by the speed of rotation, not the linear speed of the point.

 

Another thought to consider: is it possible that the real reason letter shapes degrade with speed is because we fail to speed up uniformly the rotation along with the point velocity?

Edited August 23, 2014 by Mickey

[DrakaTaarn]

In a way, the differences in velocity almost seem to separate the letters into discrete strokes. I am learning spencerian, and find that the velocity of my pen changes between letters, much as shown below. Spencerian is based on ovals, so it lends itself naturally to changes in velocity as oposed to discrete pen lifts.

DrakaTaarn

[Mickey]

I think it's a fundamental mistake to describe or think of Spencerian in terms of ovals (or even ellipses, which would be closer) or any obvious counter. Unlike many (most?) hands, I believe the Spencerian architecture is defined by the ductus (performance technique), rather than the letter architectures suggesting (or defining) possible ducti. Spencerian is at least as much as a process as it is a hand.

 

More specifically, ellipsoidal features or gestures in Spencerian are not really ellipses*, since they are not bilaterally symmetrical. For example, note the opening 'ellipsoidal' gesture in post #2. The lower arm is much flatter than the upper. According to the 'rule' advanced here, the point was traveling faster in the lower arm, but with the same angular velocity as in the upper arm.

 

 

* Most significantly, these gestures do not have (only) two focal points.

[Anne-Sophie]

I don't know how I missed that most enlightening of thread.

 

Mickey, you give such an insightful view of that hand, that it made me realize why I love it but, could never use it.

 

While I find the flourishing impressive and the drawings made in that manner, breathtaking, I find the hand itself very difficult to read as part of a long text.

 

Sara Spencer Sloan is of keen interest to me. hand which She planned to disseminate her understanding and masterful use of Spencerian by publish a book about it. I wonder if her hand is very different that the one taught by her father and brothers.

 

Anyone has ever seen the manuscript of the unpublished book as mentioned here http://www.iampeth.com/golden_sara_spencer.php ?

 

Is it described, in detail, in Michael Sull's book "Spencerian Script and Ornamental Penmanship"?

Edited August 26, 2014 by Anne-Sophie

[Mickey]

I don't know if Sara Spencer's work is described in the first volume of Sull's book. I have only the second volume, which has no such description. Considering that she taught for many, many years after abandoning the project, I doubt she was introducing a new hand as much as a commercial alternative to her brothers' books. Otherwise, we would likely have a some evidence of the new hand in the writing of her students.

 

Readability, I believe is often a question of familiarity. As I spend more time with Spencerian materials, I find it easier to read than Copperplate, the sheer regularity of which can be numbing to me.

 

I'm glad you've found the thread interesting. I intend to add to it whenever I stumble on things in my warmup / practice sessions. This morning, I continue my work on a majuscule H. (The version I'm practicing requires two changes of rotation direction, one at full stop, one at speed.)

Edited August 26, 2014 by Mickey

[Iso*]

Hmm, hmm

I fall into the category of artistic writing, i.e. ornamental penmanship. I have always felt that there has always been a divide between OP and Spencerian namely in the way letters are constructed. I say so because the styles of OP penmen tend to be more slanted, spaced, and graceful, compared to the more ordered, slightly more vertical style of Spencerian... I believe that this is most evident when comparing the lessons page on IAMPETH between the two styles of script.

I have been carefully observing the styles of Taylor, Lupfer, Zaner, Doner and Canan. It is probably due to the way I am learning the script, but I feel that ovals are ubiquitous and highly necessary. Of course performance technique is also necessary, but I have always seen OP styles being generally based off of ovals, especially when it comes to larger letter flourishes. Ovals I think are necessary to build the muscular memory and practise of the form, and they evolve to adapt to the letter, especially in capitals. The capital S I believe, is an example of adapted ovals... but then again, there are various schools of thought on this - the same goes for a cap L.

My adherence toward ovals is probably because their shape has a balance in form. The curvature is generally round and smooth... but this is probably personal preference...

[Mickey]

(Thanks for your input, Iso. It's useful.)

 

But ovals (and ellipses) are not ubiquitous, they are virtually non-existent in Spencerian (or OP). It's one of the principle, possibly seminal difference between it and Copperplate. (Look carefully. You won't see ovals or ellipses.) Copperplate, on the other hand, is rife with ellipses, but Spencerian and its close kin have none. OP, as the term is generally used on the IAMPETH site, refers to extensions of Spencerian. (Engravers and Engrossers scripts, both of which prominently do show ellipses and are similarly extensions of Roundhand, and they have their own section on the IAMPETH site.) As such, OP is just as lacking of true ovals and ellipses as unornamented Spencer is.

 

The tracing of ovals and circle is useful for building muscle memory, but that doesn't mean they are a feature of these hands. They just aren't. Here's a way to understand what I'm saying. Tracing a circle or ellipse is an exercise with one important (Spencerian) parameter eliminated - net movement from left to right. Add that parameter (one eventually does) and you produce spirals. The circle or ellipse disappears as soon as rightward movement is added. You draw the circle or ellipse to embed the movement, to which you will eventually add net movement to the right. This is done, I firmly believe, by varying pen velocity, which will inevitably produce oval destroying asymmetry.

 

A true oval on a page of OP would stand out line a nude man in a ladies' locker room. It has a feature (an axis of bilateral symmetry) that the other gestures lack. The mathematics to describe ovals and ellipses cannot adequately describe Spencer or the OPs based on it. I would suggest that rather than studying the styles of Taylor, Zaner, Lupfer ** et al. (I would include Courtney, almost to the point of excluding everyone else), that you study their methods. Try to understand the reasoning behind the exercises, not their architecture. That's what I'm espousing in this thread.

 

Here's another visualization of the method (or technique) I'm intuiting. Imagine a sweep hand from a watch projected over the tip of the pen. The hand completes one rotation every second*, either clockwise or counter clockwise. The pen is allowed to travel only in the direction the arrow is pointing at any given moment Now, visualize getting the pen point from point A to point B. To get there (at all) you need to move the pen quickly and leave some amount time before the hand points to B. You will arrive at B with the hand pointing an equal amount late. (Think ballistics.) Remember, the pen may move only in the direction the sweep hand points.

 

Now, choose a pen speed. If your acceleration is infinite (or you begin your mark with the pen already in motion), the mark will be an arc, a section of a circle. At a slower speed; you will have to leave earlier and you will arrive an equal amount late. Choose a slow enough speed, and you will not reach B, at all. You will complete the half circle before reaching B. Choose a still slower speed, but accelerate continuously, and you may spiral your way to point B. Get the picture. It is this sort of movement which describes Spencer and most OP, not ovals and ellipses. The same mathematics which describe Spencer, can be used to describe most pen movement in OP. It's mostly a matter of fiddling the parameters.

 

Observation: Spencer was supposedly inspired by the shape of river washed pebbles. In a strange way, that fits in with this theory I'm promoting. A pebble resting (fixed) in a stream will wear away flatter of the side with the faster current. There is only one case where the stones would be ovals, down the center of a relatively broad stretch of river, such that there is no water movement from one bank to the other and current is uniform on both sides of the pebble. If, however, we (or geography) wish for the water to move from side to side (or for a line, to move up, down and left to right on the page and not simply draw a single ellipse ad infinitum), there must be changes of velocity. Oval and ellipse require that velocity be equal relative to the axis of symmetry. If, however, we wish the pen to eventually move from the left side of the page to the right, the net velocity to the right must exceed that going left. That pretty much guarantees asymmetry under the proposed regimen and thus a paucity of ellipses.

 

* or any other relatively short interval

 

** Take a close look at http://www.iampeth.com/artwork/Lupfer02.jpg Lupfer seems to be almost playfully avoiding ovals and ellipses, but only just slightly. Take a look at the first letter, that beautiful L. Those two huge loops are beautifully balanced, but they are not symmetrical, the bottom arm of both is slightly flatter, indicating the pen was moving faster. Notice also the subtle shade on the upper arms, (also suggesting a slightly a slower pen). This extra link balances the visual weight of the lower arm - all very subtle and quite beautiful, but there is not really an ellipse or oval to be found on the page. I guess what I'm trying to say, is if you lock yourself into seeing ovals and ellipses, you miss what's really going on, something much more interesting and inspiring (not to mention humbling). Also, locking yourself into seeing what you think was done can sometimes lock you out of intuiting or learning how it was done.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Mickey

[Mickey]

Here's today's letter, E. This is a great letter to practice, and the key to it is to keep on spinning. Mickey's (no relation) second hand turns continuously, in this letter, anti-clockwise. You get to do all your steering with the throttle, Speed steers.

 

 

If you'll pardon that my hand is a little shakier than usual (the less said about Monday night/ Tuesday morning, the better), let's look at E in all its wretched glory. Again, I want to thank lso for his (her?) post, which steered me to Lupfer, which in turn helped me appreciate just how subtle the differences in velocity can (should) be in a well executed shape. Aside from the generally shaky line quality, the biggest fault I see here (if allowed to ignore the final shade) is the acceleration being less than smooth and perhaps the differences in speed too great. BTW, the size of this letter is about 2.5cm, and, in the interest of full disclosure, there were only a literal handful of equally okay letters out of the 25 attempts on this page, which I would count as pretty good for me. I am, after all, like the rest of you, learning this hand.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Mickey

[proton007]

Mickey, I've been reading this thread with interest, although I'm not practicing Spencerian currently.

 

Just a point to add, and I hope it will save others the wasted effort in practicing incorrectly. For smaller loops, the fingers play the devil. Our natural instinct is to offload small loops and turns to our fingers, which I realized during my practice yesterday, is a debilitating mistake. Once the fingers take over, getting the control back to the arm is deliberate, conscious effort, and the word never forms right because of a loss of rhythm.

So, the first thing to do is to forget the fingers exist. Imagine it's a holder directly connected to your arm. I finally managed to get close to the examples for warm up skills (Drill 1 and 2), with densely packed ovals and straight lines.

 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Now, this section is somewhat mathematical. I'm not sure if you've explored this before, but I think you'll find your answer here.

 

Most handwriting, IMO, can be represented by First to Third order Bezier Curves, with the occasional use of a Fourth order curve. Bezier curves are also used to define fonts for digital displays.

 

Simply put, it's a parametric equation, where the X and Y coordinates of any shape are bound together in the form of functions on a common parameter T. For instance, a Circle with the Cartesian equation X^2 + Y^2 = R^2 can be represented as X = R.cos(T) and Y = R.sin(T).

 

Now, using the parametric circle equation, where T goes from 0 to 2.pi, regular increments in T will produce the same relative difference between two points on the circle.

 

In case of Bezier curves, the number (order of the equation) and placement of the control points of the curve define the shape, but the interesting thing to note is that for the same amount of change in T, the relative change in two points along a curve varies according to the control points. So, in the straight sections, two points are placed far apart, but in curved areas, they're placed close together.

 

Take a look at this page, and notice the speed at which the point moves along the curve for different order Bezier curves. I believe this demonstrates the change in output based on regular, incremental changes in inputs. The T is usually an incremental radial input along a central point (which can be the elbow).

Edited August 29, 2014 by proton007