Cuff Link dilemma

[Canadave]

Gentlemen,

As you know, many cuff links have an angle between the "button" and the post. (In this case, "button" refers to the visible, decorative part of the cuff link.) For those that have a design that has an "up or down" orientation, such as a monogram, it seems to me that when the post is put through the cuff correctly, the orientation of the "button" is toward the wearer, instead of towards someone admiring it. I would expect it to be the other way around. (Do you know what I mean?)

Any feedback would be appreciated,

David

PS This is similar to a ring with an initial. The analogy is whether one one wears it so others can read it when the hand is held out, or so the wearer can read it.
PPS Sorry if this has been posted before. A search was unsuccessful.

 

[AlanC]

I would think it would be placed for an observer to read rather than the wearer.

 

[Feraud]

Agreed.

 

[Thin Man]

I definitely agree with the other commentors. Another solution to your problem is to use "chain" cufflinks in which there are two decorative "buttons" connected by a small chain. That way the viewer as well as the wearer may admire the design.

 

[Shaul-Ike Cohen]

For rings, the origin of the direction might lie in seal rings, though at least for rings that don't have the letter(s) mirrored, it's not a practical question anymore.

I'm afraid the very question of direction just highlights the question what the meaning or reason is anyway, reminding of Jeeves and monogrammed handkerchiefs.

Easier identification of the object? Hardly.
Showing self-confidence or proudness of oneself or one's family? Probably sometimes.
Wealth because it's individualised? Probably sometimes.
Traditionality, simple fondness for the letter design...

 

[Canadave]

no major cuff link wearers or historians?

Thanks for your feedback guys. I agree with you that it seems they should face the observer, but when the post is put through correctly, they face the wearer. I hoped some expert could explain this.

David

 

[Feraud]

Thanks for your feedback guys. I agree with you that it seems they should face the observer, but when the post is put through correctly, they face the wearer. I hoped some expert could explain this.

David

Turn the cufflink upside down. This should solve the problem.

Can you post a picture to illustrate the problem?

 

[Canadave]

Turn the cufflink upside down. This should solve the problem.

Can you post a picture to illustrate the problem?

If turned upside down, the angled post will not sit correctly.

I may post a picture if I can't get an answer. I guess the experienced cuff link wearers aren't reading this thread.

David

 

[CarloEscobar]

If turned upside down, the angled post will not sit correctly.

I may post a picture if I can't get an answer. I guess the experienced cuff link wearers aren't reading this thread.

David

Took a week to get approved to post your reply... even moderators get busy some times.

First the bend of the link goes away from the body creating a "V" in the cuff. Second unless your initial is an "M" or "W" it really doesn't make any difference which way the monogram faces. It is just people like us who put value in proper direction.

And to comment on which way a ring should face, I was always taught that it had more to do with the sentiment of the object. Facing forward meant to look forward to an event or time. Facing back towards the wearer was looking back on a memory of a time gone by. Coin rings are usually worn facing forward "anticipation of wealth and retirement." Signet rings worn facing back "remenbering the responsibilities you accepted with the position"

Hope this helps.
Carlo

 

[Tomasso]

If turned upside down, the angled post will not sit correctly.

Here's a photo, albeit half-a$$ed.

I may post a picture if I can't get an answer.

Why wait? Why not include a photo with your query? It's so much more efficient.