TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L Archives

Archiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2008-10 > 1225332042


From: Patti Hobbs <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] Signature Comparison
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:00:42 -0500
References: <770716.31399.qm@web82101.mail.mud.yahoo.com><FE352826-A113-404A-919B-1B3C135DBBFE@hobbits8.com><A5CF2120-56E1-41C5-BC34-E4AD69C69F7B@physics.ucla.edu>
In-Reply-To: <A5CF2120-56E1-41C5-BC34-E4AD69C69F7B@physics.ucla.edu>


I didn't want to put much of my own opinion in so as not to influence
anyone, but I wondered if the "d" in particular wasn't a stylistic
element of the times that later was generally abandoned by everyone.
Sort of like the long "s" that looks like an "f". I've seen the
letter "d" written like the older signature a lot in older documents
by various people and not at all later on.

Patti


On Oct 29, 2008, at 8:19 PM, D.L. MacLaughlan-Dumes wrote:

> The lowercase d has completely changed form. These are worth noting,
> but might be explained by assuming the 71-year-old writer was
> suffering from diminished dexterity (arthritis, for instance) and
> needed to adapt to a simpler letterform.


This thread: