Style lessons from famous signatures (no graphology)

Why look at famous signatures, and what we're not looking for

A famous signature is like a well-known building: we've seen it so often that it's an easy way to show a principle. When someone says “a big capital”, “a long sweep underneath” or “it got shorter over time”, a concrete example is worth a page of explanation.

Two things, though, we leave out on purpose. One is character analysis: signing large doesn't mean someone was vain, and signing ornately doesn't mean they were pompous. Why not is the subject of our article on graphology. The other is copying: reproducing another person's signature isn't just a question of taste; it goes against the whole point of a signature, which is to identify you.

John Hancock: when size is the message

On the 1776 copy of the American Declaration of Independence, John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress, wrote the largest and most prominent signature, below the text and above the others. It's a large, rounded, joined cursive with tall capitals and a long, looping flourish running underneath. It became so famous that in American English “John Hancock” is practically a synonym for a signature.

You'll often hear that he signed so large so that the British king could read it without his spectacles. That's a legend, not an established fact. The lesson holds regardless: size is relative to its surroundings. On a document many people sign, a larger, clearly written name stands out.

• What to borrow. A confident, readable pair of capitals, an even, orderly cursive, and a decisive stroke underneath that frames the name.
• What to leave. The size. A modern signature goes on bank cards, terminals and tiny boxes, where a huge form simply won't fit.

Elizabeth I: ornament that frames

Elizabeth I of England has one of the most ornate signatures known to history. The words “Elizabeth R” (the “R” stands for the Latin “regina”, queen) are surrounded and underlined by interlacing loops and curves, as if the name stood inside a decorative frame. The letters themselves are clearly readable; the ornament lives around them.

It comes from an age when a royal signature had to project power and ceremony and didn't need to be dashed off ten times a day. That's what makes it instructive: it shows what ornament can do, and what it costs.

• What to borrow. The idea that decoration should live around the name, not inside the letters. One well-placed sweep or loop underneath frames the signature and keeps the name readable.
• What to leave. The quantity. Three or four loops come out a little differently every time, and a modern signature has to work quickly and consistently.

If your finish is where you'd like to add flair, our guide to signature endings helps you choose a form that suits you and that you can repeat.

Napoleon: how a signature shrinks

Napoleon's signature is often cited as an example of how a signature changes over the years. Surviving documents show that early in his career he signed with his name written out, and that the form later became shorter, faster and looser, until it was reduced to a few letters and a sweeping stroke.

There's no need for a psychological explanation. Anyone who signs a huge number of papers every day shortens their signature without trying: the hand drops whatever slows it down and keeps whatever is most distinctive. The same happens to anyone with a lot of paperwork today, just on a smaller scale.

• What to borrow. The idea of planned shortening. If you know heavy use will shorten your signature, design the short version in advance, with the same capital.
• What to leave. Unplanned drift. If your signature quietly wears down into a completely different mark, it will no longer resemble your old specimens.

How to build a family of full signature, short form and monogram is covered in our pieces on short signatures and having more than one signature.

Lincoln and Washington: the tradition of the readable signature

Two American presidents offer classic examples of the restrained, readable signature. Abraham Lincoln typically signed “A. Lincoln”: an initial, a full stop, then the surname written out in full, with no decoration. George Washington's signature is an orderly, balanced cursive in which he often abbreviated his first name and wrote his surname out.

Both show that a signature can be memorable precisely because there's nothing superfluous in it. A readable surname says at once who signed, and an abbreviated first name makes the movement quicker.

• What to borrow. The initial-and-surname form. It's timeless, holds up in official settings and stays readable when you rush.
• What to watch. A fully written surname can feel cramped in small boxes if it's long. In that case, keep the start of the surname readable and let the end shorten.

How readable your own signature should be is the subject of a separate article.

Shakespeare: before consistency was expected

Surprisingly few signatures survive from William Shakespeare: six are generally accepted as genuine, all on legal documents, including his will. What surprises most people is that they aren't alike. He didn't always spell his name the same way, the forms differ from one another, and the letters of the period's English handwriting, known as secretary hand, are hard for a modern reader to make out.

This wasn't carelessness: in that era, consistent spelling and a uniform signature weren't expected the way they are now. That's exactly what makes it a good counterexample. Today, the most important quality of a signature is consistency, because your bank, a public office or the other party to a contract measure it against what they've seen before.

• What to borrow. Nothing in the form, but one idea: a signature is a product of its time and its use. Yours has to work in everyday life now.
• What to leave. The variety. If you sign differently every time, your signature can't do its job of identifying you.

The royal “R”: a fixed formula

British monarchs traditionally sign with their first name and the letter “R”, short for the Latin “rex” (king) or “regina” (queen). Elizabeth II, for example, signed official documents “Elizabeth R”. It wasn't a personal idea but a centuries-old formula.

The lesson is surprisingly practical: a fixed element that always appears in the same place stabilises a signature. You don't need to be a monarch to have one. It could be an underline that's always the same, a distinctive link between two letters, or a full stop after the name.

• What to borrow. One fixed element that appears the same way in every signature. It helps the form stay recognisable for years.
• What to watch. Keep the fixed element simple. If it's complicated, it will be the part that drifts most often.

Walt Disney: signature or logo?

The well-known Disney wordmark looks like a handwritten signature, and many people assume it's Walt Disney's own. It's widely reported, however, that the logo is a stylised form refined by designers, and that Walt Disney's everyday signatures didn't always match it closely.

That neatly shows the difference between a logo and a signature. A logo is designed to appear large, from a distance, identical down to the pixel every time. A signature is designed so your hand can write it daily, in a hurry, with different pens on different surfaces. Their purposes differ, and so do their forms.

• What to borrow. A recognisable, distinctive capital and an even rhythm, which make a name memorable in a logo-like way.
• What to leave. The demand for logo-like precision. A handwritten signature always varies a little, and that's fine as long as its skeleton stays the same.

If you're a creator and want a mark for your work too, the difference between an autograph and a signature is explained here.

Six style lessons in one place

Put the examples above together and six simple lessons emerge. None of them is about character; they're all about form and use.

• Size fits the space. Hancock's signature was large relative to the document. Yours should suit today's boxes and cards.
• Ornament lives around the name. As with Elizabeth I: a framing sweep, not loops crammed into the letters. At today's scale, one is enough.
• Plan the shortening. Napoleon's signature shortened on its own. Yours should have a short version designed in advance.
• Keep a readable anchor. Lincoln's and Washington's signatures are clear because the surname is readable. One readable element is enough.
• Consistency is the point. It wasn't expected in Shakespeare's day. Today it's a signature's most important quality.
• Have one fixed element. Like the royal “R”: a simple detail that's always the same keeps the form stable.

Try it with your own name

You learn these lessons by writing, not by reading. Take a sheet of paper and try one at a time, on your own name, with your own letter shapes.

1. 1
   Write your current signature five times. This is your starting point, the version you'll compare the others with.
2. 2
   Choose one lesson. For example a framing sweep underneath, or the initial-and-surname form.
3. 3
   Write it five times with the new element. Don't copy the example; just carry the idea over to your own name.
4. 4
   Test it small and fast. Sign inside a 4 × 1 cm box, then five times at speed. If the lesson still works there, keep it.
5. 5
   Compare the next day. Put the old and new versions side by side. The one you still like tomorrow is the better one.

If you'd like to see your name in several styles at once, Calligra lets you try more than 30 styles that handle size, the capital and the finish in different ways, and teaches the one you choose stroke by stroke. Try it with your name. For the general principles of a professional-looking signature, read on in this article.

Questions