Monograms, Even When You're Not Sure What They Mean. And Unexpected Presents.

My mother gave my daughter the necklace above. Not for Christmas, mind you. Here's Christmas.

Theory "Sasha" Cupid Tribal Black Dress. Who thinks up these names? (I'm telling you. Wear this stuff when you are young and pay no mind to any flaws you think you've got. They are defeated by your sheer youth and, well, youth.)

Which looked so fabulous on, the morning of December 26th my mother emerged from her wing of the house holding something sparkly, and said, "Here darling. I never wear this. Would you like it?" Jaws dropped, just a little. "This would be so much more unusual than a long necklace."

Good moment for Mom's credo, "A simple thank you will suffice."


It's apparently from the family. My mother says those medallions spell out Martha. Hmm. Perhaps in code. We could make neither hide nor tail of the monogram. But we really didn't care.

My daughter works. In New Jersey. No socialite she. We're very, very thankful for health insurance. But this is my family and these are the artifacts.

Generosity in all its forms is at the top of my list of the Universal Good. Mom, thank you. Simply, thank you very much. Now if I can just get my daughter to take a lot of pictures of the wearing said necklace...

An Actual Answer To The Julia Child's Monogrammed Pin Question

It's my birthday today. (I know, that's not the answer to the question about Julia Child's pin, but I'm getting there.) Kindnesses are happening today, phone calls from friends and family, none the less appreciated for their familiarity. It is clear to me that 53 is a most uneventful of birthdays. The real significance is skeins of affection, drawn about me like a knitted shawl. I don't know what brought me that image but since I can't even begin to knit for myself the metaphor is apt.

Kindness, however, has extended to the Internet. The Queen of Cashmere emailed me to let us all know she has the answer to our questions about the monogram pin that Meryl Streep wore in Julie and Julia. (See? Just takes a little time.)

"Not long ago, I spoke to Ann Roth, the Academy Award winning costume designer who transformed Meryl Streep into Julia Child. The pin was commissioned for the movie using Julia Child’s initials and was inspired by one in Ms. Roth’s personal collection. She was unsure if Mrs. Child had actually owned a monogram pin of her own — though we agreed it wouldn’t be a stretch of the imagination. Ms. Roth, a dynamic octogenarian, was definitely amused to think that anyone found monogram jewelry newsworthy as it was a look from a bygone era and one she remembered well."

Ha! Ms. Roth, little do you know. And the Queen, along with her hotline to Hollywood royalty, has a secret source of diamond monogram jewelry for the 21st century. With photos that may incite a riot of desire.

As another surprise, Peonies and Polaroids, not knowing it was my birthday today, wrote me a thank you note. So nice. A thank you note is almost never a mistake. Exquisite manners are almost always good for all involved.

The rest of the kindnesses I'm experiencing are more random, maybe unmeant, probably unseen, still felt. I read many blogs. I comment where I have something to say. Sometimes people send me emails. Sometimes people comment on what I write. This has made my life richer in ways I could not have predicted. To you all, many thanks.

Madeleine Albright Says, "Read My Pins".

We are not alone, pin-wearers. Jill, at Stella's Roar, brought this to my attention. Ms. Albright, our former Secretary of State (and a Wellesley graduate), takes the identity-though-lapel-jewelry process one step further.

In 1997, Albright was named the first female Secretary of State and became, at that time, the highest ranking woman in the history of the U.S. government. While serving under President Bill Clinton, first as U.S ambassador to the United Nations, and then as Secretary of State, Albright became known for wearing brooches that purposefully conveyed her views about the situation at hand. “I found that jewelry had become part of my personal diplomatic arsenal,” Secretary Albright has said. “While President George H.W. Bush had been known for saying ‘Read my lips,’ I began urging colleagues and reporters to ‘Read my pins." (museum of arts and design)

What do we think the snake was saying? And to whom?

Images:
From an upcoming exhibition at the museum of arts and design in New York City via Stella's Roar.

Monograms and Doc Martens

Writing about monograms (and continuing to find beautiful pictures) I have found myself thinking about identity. One might with good reason tell me I have too much time on my hands. That I need to get a job. Yes. I know. However.

Monograms have an immediate implication for identity. Monograms mean something before you even begin to decipher the initials. We assume someone wearing any sort of monogram at all is fairly conservative. (Or making a very ironic comment, if they wear a monogram with, say, Goth outfits. I know, wouldn’t that be funny?) However.

My own personal, non-universal, case is a little complicated. I am a more left-than-right-of-center person living in a liberal area with a liberal professor father and a liberal New England mother. Our ilk isn’t really prone to monograms. However. I also come from a High WASP family with initialed bowls and mirrors and spoons and pins. My family name is due to make its exit with this generation, unless my brother has a late-in life-marriage with children. I have a sheepish pride in my heritage.

So I wonder, do I, do we all, have to choose? I hope not. Can we belong to Group Blue AND Group Orange? To Group Up AND Group Down? I hope yes. How expansive is identity in this day and age? I hope very.

Freud has something to say.

“A good part of the struggles of mankind center round the single task of finding an expedient accommodation – one, that is, that will bring happiness – between this claim of the individual and the cultural claims of the group; and one of the problems that touches the fate of humanity is whether such an accommodation can be reached by means of some particular form of civilization or whether this conflict is irreconcilable.” Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents

So does Jim Collins, author of one of the best books on business to be published in the last 20 years.

…”highly visionary companies…do not oppress themselves with what we call the “Tyranny of the OR” – the rational view that cannot easily accept paradox, that cannot live with two seemingly contradictory forces or ideas at the same time….highly visionary companies liberate themselves with the “Genius of the AND” – the ability to embrace both extremes of a number of dimensions at the same time. Instead of choosing between A OR B, they figure out a way to have both A AND B.” Jim Collins, Built to Last

I have no delusion that I can solve Freud’s question for all time. If I solve it, I solve it in a small way, at 7:13 in the morning, California time. This was my car for all the years of childrearing. It now belongs to my son. I take no responsibility for how it looks.

These are the shoes I bought at the same time we got the minivan. So I could keep that sense of self above and beyond the role I was playing at the time. So I could be a mother AND someone who once lived in Manhattan and went to CBGB's. I take full responsibility for how these look. Years of disuse.


This is another bowl. From my mother's side. Happy Birth Day Matilda.


I don't like confrontation but even so would fight as best I could for the right of every person to define themselves as they want. To belong where they want to belong, and to be different where and how they want to be different. I don’t think I’m special in this. I would guess that there are many people in the world who think to themselves, "Yes. I choose this group AND that group. Neither is my full identity. Not altogether. I am this. And that. Maybe several thats."

However.

Images
Blue "M" by Johnny Por Taing via mint
All others by me

Julia Child's Monogram Pin And Other Works Of Artists

The little journey down the monogrammed path has left some pretty pictures in my files. Why keep them to myself?

PrincessFreckles and Plus Size Bride commented on the pin Meryl Streep wears in Julie and Julia. Apparently the production company did not understand that this item would create a groundswell of trend-setters lusting and searching for photos. Here is a still, which I captured by brute force from the movie trailer.


It's not clear whether this is or is not in fact a monogram. That's OK. We can pretend. Then we can romp through my favorite antique jewelry sites and find much better pictures of similar items. It's Friday, after all. The pin below is from Lang Antiques in San Francisco. I'm warning you, DO NOT go to their website unless you have no work at all to do today. I don't think this is supposed to be a monogram either. But if my name were, um, Jennifer Foster, or something of the sort, I'd be of a different opinion.

The "M" below sold in an auction lot at Skinner Auctioneers. It could have been yours. Mary? Melissa? Or simply want to commemorate Mom without going all the way to needle, ink, and a possibly scary tattoo parlor?


This little 10k pin is from Penelope's Pearls. Or you can look on Etsy. Yes, Etsy has monogrammed pins in their vintage section.


One final thought. As I found out in my original, somewhat trivial research, monograms were often tied in some way to artisans' marks. Artist signatures, if you will. Which, as it turns out, are themselves works of art. Sort of like Prince's glyph. As below. From artarchiv.net. They have pages and pages.
Not a diamond in sight. Have a wonderful weekend.

Bags Without Logos, The Budget Version

So let's say you want a bag without a manufacturer's monogram. Otherwise known as a logo. Logos and other branding tchotchkes (Yiddish word of the day) are ubiquitous these days. Hard to avoid. When I bought my new purse, it was displayed with charms attached to the handles. I refrained.

But I digress. Let's assume you want a bag without branding, and that you also want to send High WASP social signals. (It is possible that's not something you want. I do understand.) Here are some options.

Bags Without Logos - Budget Version by High WASP featuring Coach bags

First of all, let us take a moment of silence for a brand with history. Consider the bag in the center. Coach, and few say otherwise, is floundering at the moment. They think their logo can stand in for the quality of design, materials, and construction that built the value of their brand. We can only hope they return to their senses. I still have a drawstring Coach bag that I might take off its hook and unretire.

Now where was I? Oh yes. There are some general principles at play here. When manufacturers put logos and copycat brand elements on bargain items, they are hoping for reflected glory via mimicry. I will not make a blanket statement on the rightness or wrongness of that choice. It’s just not mine. So if you don't want logos, but do want some style, some cachet, what then? You have to substitute design for logos. It’s easiest to do this with limitless funds. What commercial enterprise isn’t easier with limitless funds? But it’s possible on a budget.

Start in the upper right on the circle above with how not to do this. (Clinton? Stacy?) Knockoffs, time-honored though they may be, are rarely up to the task at hand. They ape key design strokes of genius of brands that have won luxury status. But the strokes of genius often turn out to be nothing without faithful execution. Chanel's quilting, for example. To which Marc Jacobs pays lovely homage. However, this kind of quilting does not translate well to bargain brands. The beauty of Chanel and Jacobs’ quilting is in the feather-soft leather, the perfect stitching. So unless knockoffs are done with irony, clearly imitation, this strategy is a non-starter.

Moving on. The green bag looks great in pictures. The design is classic. However, it's made of plastic. So quite risky, in that the material might negate the design, leaving the bag only shabby. How about nautical? Pacman? The anchor and the hungry ghosts substitute for logos. They are well-loved symbols that say something about the person carrying the bag. Something you brought home from a souk in Morocco, or the San Blas islands off the coast of Panama would serve as well. These aren't bags for a corporate job, perhaps, unless you work for a yachting company, or as a software designer, but they are bags that say who you are with a clean design sensibility at a low price.

Finally, in my opinion the blue and orange envelope, and the straw from J. Crew are the closest to what I would advise for anyone looking to get High WASP, no logo style with an inexpensive bag. The blue bag has great colors and a classic, simple shape. The straw is made of seagrass, great color and texture, again in a classic, simple shape. In the end, something about the bag you choose, in the High WASP paradigm, and possibly others, ought to make you feel, “Oh, good job you. Good job.” As others have said, ideally it’s not about the money. Ideally.

Monograms In The Year 2009

I'm game for a little good-natured deconstruction of monograms in this day and age if you are. Symbols are symbols, after all, and I am particularly fond of the cultural sort. Let's guess that monograms are a way to say who we are. We might think that the wearing of any monogram at all indicates that the monogrammed person is most likely somewhat traditional, conservative. But there's variance. This person, for example, looks pretty serious about her monogram. Classic.


This person is more light-hearted. Preppy.

This person, maybe classic, preppy, with an arty edge.


But wait. This person can hardly be seen as traditional.


Yes. The artist formerly known as Prince. It's his glyph. A logo? A monogram? A brand?

You see, I think it could be fairly said that we have a situation in America where the traditional monogram is converging with the trend of "branding" ourselves. We're exhorted to come up with an online brand, to Twitter with a copyrighted name, to brand our personas. Even the concept of personalizing a wedding is known as "branding".... *slight shudder*. Although I love the way those lighted monograms look, I confess. Very Cinderella.

Which has me thinking. Cinderella's monogram...hmm.....Mr. Eisner, sir, do you have a moment?

Images:
ABC from Embroidery Arts
MTC and PJB from my mad Powerpoint skills
Prince glyph from Minnesota Historical Society (no kidding)

The History And Meaning Of Monograms

TP asked me last week what my thinking was on monograms and where one ought to find them. In truth, my thinking on monograms has been pretty much limited to my family experience. In which, as TP said, towels yes, sheets yes, jewelry yes, personal items like mirrors and brushes, yes, silver yes, needlepoint yes, clothes no, accessories no. But that’s just my family, and I have never paid attention to the wider trend. So I did a little Internet research. I confess, I did not find the academic article on the history and cultural anthropology of monograms in America that I was looking for. It may be out there. Perhaps it is yet to be written.

Here’s what I did find. Almost everyone agrees, although without a lot of supporting data, that monograms were first seen on coins to mark the reign of Greek and Roman rulers. Almost everyone agrees, although again without much supporting data, that the next wave of monograms was caused by the rise of middle class artisans in Europe’s medieval era wanting to mark their work. Other things come randomly to mind. Clearly the family crests, heraldic symbols and tartans of European feudal lords were monograms of a sort, with symbols in place of letters, in an era where literacy was hardly universal.


Clearly monks illuminating manuscripts were the first in the West to use letters as decorative elements, in a time when formal art was found primarily in the Church.


It appears that, subsequently, the Victorians (1837-1901) went monogram crazy. Monograms were first used so as not to lose linens in the wash, but eventually showed up on decorative and personal items like lockets and silver. And ivory mirrors. It is not coincidental that Louis Vuitton first monogrammed, or logoed, the leather goods of his family firm in 1876. It is possible that Victorian class anxiety contributed to the proliferation of monograms. This is of course pure speculation on my part.


One might say that the monogram and its family symbolism cohorts have at times served to mark power, at times to mark skills, at times to mark ownership, at times to mark status, at times to signal family belonging, and occasionally, as an instance of the human urge to embellish and decorate. We like to make things look pretty. We like to make identities for ourselves. We like to signal who we are. However we got there.

Sources; images
Antique monograms from Elizabeth Anne Designs
Heraldry from Clan Lachlan
Illuminated manuscript from Bowdoin College
Antique Louis Vuitton trunk from Webshots by ch95

Sources; history
Embroidery Arts
and others, but they all said the same thing:).