Traditionally speaking: Monogramming is much more complicated than any simple rule – even the one advanced by the OP. My understanding is that the three letter monogram with the big center letter is a woman’s monogram and is appropriately used on household linen – especially towels and sheets adn pillow cases. Bedspreads are not monogrammed and table linen tends to be monogrammed with a single letter, the initial of a surname. Trousseau linens are monogrammed with a woman’s first initial, the big initial of her maiden name, and her middle initial. So is her pre-marital stationery, which she uses until the first time she needs to re-order after her marriage. So, her thank you notes for wedding gifts are written on her maiden name cards, etc. Any linens purchased after marriage are marked with the woman’s first initial, her big married surname initial, and her maiden name initial. The only time men use a little, big, little monogramming format is – maybe-- on their own personal stationery. However, men can’t go wrong with block letters in first, middle, last name order – on their shirt cuffs, on their boxers, on their pajamas, and stamped on leather goods, embossed or in raised ink print (engraving) on stationery, and engraved on personal silver items: fountain pens, cufflinks, snuffboxes, hairbrushes, hipflasks, razors, etc. Household silver can be marked with a woman’s three letter monogram, as appropriate to the date of its purchase ( either before or after marriage)or a single surname initial, again as appropriate by date. The best silver, of course, is the stuff marked with the monogram of your great-grandmother’s childless first marriage, especially if none of the letters bear any relation to anyone in the current household. Dog collars are marked with the single letter of the household, unless the dog is a poodle or some other kind of “lady’s dog”, in which case it is marked with the lady’s monogram.
You put the word error in quotes as if to imply that it’s not an error. Hasn’t this been adequately explained? Try reading the OP again, you’ll understand if you try.
Isn’t it intuitively obvious that a person’s middle initial is the least relevant part of their name? Why would anyone think to make their middle initial extra big?
My mother would love you. Her first name begins with an S and her maiden name began with a B. My grandmother decided she wanted my mother’s initials to spell something so gave her the made-up middle name of Orlise. So for decades my mother’s friends delighted in buying her items monogrammed with SOB. She hates monogrammed stuff.
. . . but if her son is a male, as I would assume he is, then it either: 1) isn’t an error since, as has been adequately explained, men don’t use a little/big/little mark; or, 2) is a girl’s mark given to a boy, which though an error is an error of another sort. Right?
whole bean – owner of multiple first/middle/last block monogrammed shirts and luggage and a wallet, single letter monogrammed towels and napkins and silver with initials for who knows whom.
Well, i guess i’m just an uncultured buffon, but i never even knew there was a correct monogram format.
I also agree with gigi that the OP’s formula only makes sense if the middle letter is, in fact, monogrammed considerably larger than the outside ones. If they’re all the same size, as seems to be the case on many monograms, then having the family initial in the middle just seems stupid.
I would say a double-layered error of another sort! Typically, the man’s monogram is 3 equally-sized letters. John Paul Smith would be JPS (such as on a shirt cuff), not JSP. So, the mistake was 1) getting a female-style or family-style monogram on a boy’s bag (sometimes you see the last initial in the middle & the wife & husband’s first initial on either side, as I think someone else mentioned) and 2) making the large letter the middle initial.
I believe that would be more of a sigil than a monogram. Of course, I also believe it is pronounced “sweet and sour pork” or something to that effect, when spoken aloud. That’s probably why he went back to Prince. The other was just too damn long.
<nitpick>
It is still incorrect. If you want to be 100% accurate you have to use the noun “polloi” in the accusative case, ie: ‘A simple equation that separates you from tous pollous’
</nitpick>
I know they do, but since she bolded the middle initial, I assumed that meant that it was meant to be bigger. And in the LLBean examples, it clearly shows the big-letter-in-the-middle example to have the last initial in the middle, and the all-one-size example to have the last initial at the end. Maybe she just liked the style of the big-letter-in-the-middle monogram.
Psh. Let’s not get silly here. One does not decline words quoted in other languages. Besides, it would be genitive, not accusative. Who ever heard of an accusative of separation?
