WriteAntiques

Helping You Find Right Antiques

Be my Valentine, but be sure to send me a Victorian card

By Christopher Proudlove ©

by Christopher Proudlove©
Español | Deutsche | Français | Italiano | Português

Val2


Poor St. Valentine. He probably never had a sweetheart of his own and he had absolutely nothing in common with lovers. He became their saint quite by chance. His story starts in Rome in about 271AD when the poor wretch was flung into prison for proclaiming his Christianity. There, he attempted to convert his captors and his cellmates and even persuaded the Emperor Claudius Gothicus to grant all Christian prisoners their freedom. It did him no good though. First they virtually clubbed him to death and then for good measure they beheaded him.

A century or so later saw the Christian church using the names of martyred heroes to add an air of sanctity to all former pagan festivals. And so it was with Valentine’s Day. Originally, the Romans had celebrated the feast of Lupercalia - the February festival in honour of Pan and Juno - in a style only they knew how. The frolics were X-rated. Suffice it to say that all Rome’s fair maidens put their names in a hat to be drawn by potential suitors. The results were inevitable. Calling it St. Valentine’s Day at least made things sound wholesome.

The practice of drawing names remained for centuries alongside all manner of other quaint customs. For example, country folk thought February 14th was the day that birds chose their mates. In the Middle Ages, lovers exchanged tokens on that day to show their regard for one another. In the 18th century, unmarried women believed that the first bachelor they met on February 14th would be their future husbands, while Dorsetshire maidens left candles burning in their rooms all night, thinking that their loves’ hearts would melt along with the wax.

One of the earliest commercially produced Valentine cards is in the British Museum. It was published in 1789 by J. Wallis, of Ludgate Street, London, and bears a red heart. The verse reads: ‘Believe my love’s without disguise - so let’s marry and be wise.’. The practice of sending elaborate cards does not appear to have started before the 1800s. The improvement in the postal service in 1815 boosted sales and by 1835, the Post Office was recording an extra 60,000 mailings on February 13th. By 1870, more than a million cards were being delivered each year.

Lacy paper Valentines were popular in the 1820s. Many were made using the 18th century technique of pricking paper with a pin to produce pictures. Some had tiny lift-up flaps, beneath which a personal message could be written. As the custom grew, so cards became more elaborate. Velvet, lace, shells, skeleton leaves, spun glass, feathers, gold and silver wire, scraps, locks of hair were used to decorate cards carrying suitably sentimental verse.

Valentines increased in popularity following the introduction in 1840 of Rowland Hill’s penny post. Ready-made envelopes came into use when specialist printer De La Rue invented a machine to make them which he showed at the Great Exhibition of 1851. Valentines which previously had been folded quarto size were now printed smaller to fit into the new envelopes.

Mechanical Valentines were introduced at about the same time which kept the craze alive. Tiny figures could be made to move by pulling a cardboard tongue, while another favourite was a church with a front door that opened to reveal a wedding ceremony in progress. Sometimes a verse would ask the recipient of the card to lift a dainty paper leaf attached to it to reveal the face of the one best beloved by the sender. On peeping beneath, the man or woman would see his or her own face reflected in a tiny mirror. Others bore small trinkets, a tiny bottle of perfume, beadwork, shell designs or small pieces of jewellery.

Comic cards were also popular. One appeared to be a cheque ‘Issued by the Bank of Love’ and signed by Cupid. It promised to pay the bearer the entire love of the sender but its appearance, in the 1860s, was but a brief one. So well printed and convincing were they, the authorities took fright and prohibited their use for fear of them being used in a widespread fraud.

The appearance of the cruel and vulgar Valentine card towards the end of the 19th century signalled the end. For a few coppers, it was possible to insult your deadliest enemy by sending a card anonymously bearing a mocking caricature, complete with the most unkind of verse. A jilted man could send his ex a card warning her that she would end her days a spinster. In reply, her card would call him a Simple Simon. Another read: ‘What goose upon goose, you ill-looking brute; you never will me for a Valentine suit.’ Others chided gossips; the girl ‘weary waiting for a beau’ and the ‘Champagne Charlie’.

In fact, cards became so spiteful that by the 1870s and 1880s, the popularity of the habit of sending any Valentine started to wane. By then, Christmas cards surpassed Valentines in volume of mailings. The First World brought a further decline and, despite a brief rise in popularity in the 1930s, they almost disappeared entirely. Finding Valentine cards in good taste is not easy today either!

Pictures show, top: This charming Valentine postcard came from a French flea market. It was posted in Paris in 1904 and cost me 10 francs. However, the real joy is it was manufactured by Raphael Tuck and Sons - doyen of postcard printers - and is worth £30-40

Below, left to right: A printed and embossed Valentine card, circa 1900, entitled My Heart’s Best Wished All Are Thine. It’s worth £20-25

This lacy frippery is inscribed by hand inside it “To dear Annie with Ernie Jones’ very best love”. It dates from circa 1870 and is worth £25-30

A lacy late Victorian Valentine card titled I Love Thee My Sweet One. Inside is the romantically coy message “From D.E.J.” It’s worth £30-35

Val1Val3Val4

Tags: Ephemera · Valentine

2 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Jon Hatfield // May 21, 2008 at 5:17 pm

    In the U.S. market valentines continued to be a major category with mass production (by hand assembly) of layered lace fold valentines increasing in the late 1890s–replaced in part in the early 1900s by mass produced printed fold valentines with embossing & printing that imitated the lace effect. Whitney & McLoughlin were the main publishers, but the assembled fold valentines involved backings, paper laces, & tiny added diecuts acquired from other publisher and McL & Whitney’s subsequent printed forms featured artwork from other publisher sources.

    The glory pieces of American art paper are the outsized upscale fancy diecut mechanical valentines (& other holiday diecut pieces & art calendars) 1900-06 from Tuck and Hagelberg, featuring mostly artwork by Frances Brundage, as shown in Sarah Steier & Donna Braun’s collector book A Bit of Brundage. Nister had a smaller line of diecut pieces, and International Art Publishing Company had a line of fancy diecut valentines featuring Ellen Clapsaddle artwork. Whitney also distributed an upscale line of fancy diecut valentines featuring Ellen Clapsaddle artwork from the Kopal Euro postcards, perhaps by arrangement with IAPCo. The “Winsch” publisher had a small line in the fancy diecut valentine category in the years before the postcards.

    Valentine postcards largely displaced other forms of valentines after 1906 and roughly equalled or exceeded in number Christmas postcards during the U.S. postcard era, which didn’t take off until 1907. While art postcards were at most a side-product to diecut art paper up to 1907, the few lines of U.S.-market postcards 1902-1906 were predominantly valentine postcards. The largest in volume were the Tuck (from Tuck’s New York studio) E. Curtiss somewhat comical yearly valentine sets 1903-06 (1902-06?), one of which consists of 24 cards with occupational themes found everywhere in ordinary U.S. postcard stock. I acquired 19 of these over a year’s span without much searching a few years ago. The postcard shown at the top is from one of the two U.S. Tuck Curtiss sets with national figures themes, 12 cards each. The only notable U.S. set of “vinegar” valentine postcards is an early McL. set. A 1908 Whitney set, much more widely distributed and very common appears to be more comical in intent than hurtful. The Victorian sense of humor is difficult to assess from this point in time. The bulk of the later valentine postcards feature generic cupids, children, etc. and, while charming as a category, do not much fit the category of art postcards and are collected mainly as valentine pieces rather than for the art. However, the Hagelberg, “Winsch,” and International Art Publishing Co. and a few other publishers valentine postcards are art postcards and collected for the artwork involved.

    Except for a line of Hagelberg diecut valentines reusing artwork from the 20 years earlier fancy valentines, U.S. diecut and mechanical valentines after WWI are mostly something of a horror story–mass & poorly produced in Germany, an imitation of the fancy mechanical valentines of the early 1900s. By the late 1920s diecut valentines were another category altogether, pieces exchanged by young school children in a yearly ritual that continued post WWII and collected for the charming children themes involved. The 1930s school exchange valentines include a peculiar group of large single sheet vinegar valentines, mostly aimed at teachers–not sure what to make of them. ha.

    Valentines in various categories and times are the largest collectible category in U.S. paper after postcards (also in various categories but more limited in time span, since the U.S. postcard era began later, 1902, and ended earlier, 1930, than in the UK and Europe–only two major art postcard groups continued into the 1920s, the Intn. Art/Wolf Ellen Clapsaddle cards and the “Winsch” Jason Freixas cards… nothing to compare to the new flowering of children art postcards in the UK and Europe during the 1920s and continuing in Europe through the 30s and surviving into the post-WWII period).

    That’s more or less an outline of the valentine phenomenon this side of the Atlantic.

  • 2 Christopher Proudlove // May 21, 2008 at 10:22 pm

    Thanks Jon, great comment.
    Chris

Leave a Comment