Typeface Index: Initials and Monograms

image link-topic-sf0.jpg

image link-shortblank-sf0.jpg

Empire Initials (ATF)

Cut by Gustave F. Schroeder as an independent matrix engraver, for ATF. Dated by Saxe to ca. 1898. Shown in the the Saxe/Johnston edition of Loy, p. 74.

image link-shortblank-sf0.jpg

Initials, Series Nos. 44, 49, 50, 51, 52 (Cincinnati)

Non-ornamented (but fancy) initials shown on p. 106 of the 1888 Cincinnati specimen. These are the non-ornamented versions of Ornamened Cincinnati initials Series Nos. 45, 46, 47, and 48 shown in the 1888 Cincinnati specimen (p. 107).

Similar to Cincinnati's Didot (shown p. 113 of the 1888 specimen). Related somehow to the ornamented initials recast in the 20th century as Kittypot Casting No. 1 (identified then as originally Ornamented Initials No. 1145 (Cincinnati - Kittypot)) and Kittypot Casting No. 6 (identified then as originally Ornamented Initials No. 49 (Cincinnati - Kittypot)).

image link-shortblank-sf0.jpg

Ornamented Initials, Series Nos. 45, 46, 47, 48 (Cincinnati)

Ornamented initials shown on p. 107 of the 1888 Cincinnati specimen. These are the ornamented versions of non-ornamened Cincinnati initials Series Nos. 44, 49, 50, 51, and 52 shown in the 1888 Cincinnati specimen (p. 106).

Similar to Cincinnati's Didot (shown p. 113 of the 1888 specimen). Related somehow to the ornamented initials recast in the 20th century as Kittypot Casting No. 1 (identified then as originally Ornamented Initials No. 1145 (Cincinnati - Kittypot)) and Kittypot Casting No. 6 (identified then as originally Ornamented Initials No. 49 (Cincinnati - Kittypot)).

The basic design patent would seem to be US no. 13,795 issued dated 1883-03-20 to George F. Giesecke of Leipsic (Leipzig) in Saxony, German Empire (application filed 1993-02-10). The design patent is for the ornamented version.

image link-shortblank-sf0.jpg

Ornamented Two-Color Initials No. 49 (Cincinnati - Kittypot)

A 20th century recasting in Steve Watts' Kittypot Casting series, Kittypot Casting No. 6. He cites them as originally Cincinnati Ornamented Initials No. 49. I have not yet found that, but they are similar in form to the non-ornamened Cincinnati initials Series Nos. 44, 49, 50, 51, and 52 shown in the 1888 Cincinnati specimen (p. 106) and similar in form and ornament to the Ornamened Cincinnati initials Series Nos. 45, 46, 47, and 48 shown in the 1888 Cincinnati specimen (p. 107). The underlying form is also similar to Cincinnati's Didot (shown p. 113 of the 1888 specimen).

They seem also identical in form and ornament to the earlier one-color Kittypot Casting No. 1, which Watts' cites as Cincinnati Initials No. 1145.

image link-shortblank-sf0.jpg

Ornamented Initials No. 1145 (Cincinnati - Kittypot)

A 20th century recasting in Steve Watts' Kittypot Casting series, Kittypot Casting No. 1. He cites them as originally Cincinnati Ornamented Initials No. 1145. I have not yet found that, but they are similar in form to the non-ornamened Cincinnati initials Series Nos. 44, 49, 50, 51, and 52 shown in the 1888 Cincinnati specimen (p. 106) and similar in form and ornament to the Ornamened Cincinnati initials Series Nos. 45, 46, 47, and 48 shown in the 1888 Cincinnati specimen (p. 107). The underlying form is also similar to Cincinnati's Didot (shown p. 113 of the 1888 specimen).

They seem also identical in form and ornament to the later Kittypot Casting No. 6, which Watts' cites as Cincinnati Initials No. 49 (but the No. 49 in the 1888 specimen, while identical in letterform, has no ornamentation).


Select Resolution: 0 [other resolutions temporarily disabled due to lack of disk space]