 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Is there a source for the claim that it represents the view from Oakland/Berkeley, and that the strait is supposed to be the Golden Gate? (I always assumed, I admit without any evidence whatsoever, it was supposed to refer to Carquinez Strait.) Aaronrp 19:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- Heythen the building seen at the left would represent California's first capitol at Martinez. Note though that the horizon is a maritime horizon and that the island at Minerva's elbow could correspond to Angel Island as seen from the Berkeley hills. The rock outcrop would then represent Indian Rock, while the elevation behind Minerva's head would be Mt. Tamalpias. The building would then represent urban San Francisco. It does appear that others support your viewpoint, however. Further research at http://www.learncalifornia.org/doc.asp?id=97 (directed from the official state site) supports your thesis. The 1849 seal illustrated at http://www.learncalifornia.org/doc.asp?id=933 is consistant with the inland view direction, while the 1937 seal shown below that is more consistant with a view to the ocean.
- Well, if -- as noted in your first link -- the rivers are the "waters of the Sacramento" and the "snow-clad peaks of the Sierra Nevada make up the background," I don't see how the view could be seen as towards the west. (The maritime horizon would be the flatness of Suisun Bay.)
Aaronrp 23:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- The Suisun bay concept only "holds water" relative to the older seal. Note the difference between the images of the mountains in the two seals, and especially how the landmass at Minerva's elbow is now more reasonably seen as an island (Angel Island?). I inserted a bit on how it could be interpreted (without the geographic details). What is needed is a 1937 description by the creators. Recall, this was the time of the great exposition on Treasure Island, and the theme character was Pacifica - goddess of the entire ocean. For now, this is couched in speculative terms. I will try to get additional info from primary sources, but this could take a while. Leonard G. 03:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well, if -- as noted in your first link -- the rivers are the "waters of the Sacramento" and the "snow-clad peaks of the Sierra Nevada make up the background," I don't see how the view could be seen as towards the west. (The maritime horizon would be the flatness of Suisun Bay.)
Aaronrp 23:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- P.S. Note the subtle difference between the 1937 revision a shown [1] and the current image. Not only have the 31 stars been removed but so have the distant Sierra-Nevada mountains! (These are seen only vaguely above the hills in the 1937 revision,) There is clearly a revision beyond the images shown on the site, so this should be documented also. Sounds like some detective work to do. Also note that the building is not readily visible (if at all) in the original seal - I have always thought that it rather resembled Sutro Baths :-)
- This is simply inaccurate. The stars are plainly present in both old and new seals. Dim far-away mountains are visible behind the closer mountains in the new seal. The new seal is no more suggestive of the Golden Gate than the original seal -- indeed, the new seal shows the shoreline curving to the left, which is very far from the accurate situation as viewed from Oakland and Berkeley.
- In any event, I don't believe the article should present speculation in the absence of actual facts. The speculative paragraph about a view from Oakland and Berkeley should be removed unless some source indicates that this was the intent. Aaronrp 03:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- OK removed, I should have seen the stars. Leonard G. 05:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
A better translation is "I have found it." 1st singular, not 1st plural. It is what Archimedes allegedly exclaimed when he was ruminating in his bathtub and came up with the (2nd?) law of fluid dynamics. -- Fulminouscherub 03:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I made a few small edits here and there, including a spelling correction, but after checking the link to the source of the 1849 description, I see the spelling error was left in intentionally as a matter of historical record. However, this Wiki article does not mention this intention as the source page does. I am more inclined to correct spelling, but if others prefer the original misspelled version, how about a disclaimer as the source has, or at least a "sic" in the text? -- TouchGnome 03:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
On May 28, 2002, two additional bronze seals were dedicated alongside the Great Seal of California at the western entrance of the state Capitol. These seals were created to celebrate the past and current contributions of Native Americans and Latinos, as well as recognize the sovereignty of these groups at various points in California's history. This article should be expanded to include these commemorative seals as they were intended to reflect the state's diversity and diverse future. Without objection, I would be glad to draft a section for these seals. Hecman111 05:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Can someone make an internal link if it is described somewhere already?
Thanks. -- Mongol ( talk) 21:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- After the initial 13 colonies, many of the states that joined the Union existed first as a Territory of the United States before being annexed, a probationary period, if you will. California never went through such territorial status. — Quicksilver T @ 22:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
This German article claims the artist Arthur Nahl (1833-1889, brother of the well-known Charles Christian Nahl) redesigned the California Seal "Among his greatest successes...". Obviously this is not the 1937 revision; he reached Brooklyn in 1849 but did not come to California until 1851, making it unlikely he participated in the 1849 design (it would be nice to show this in the article, btw!). Does anyone know more? Sparafucil ( talk) 05:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- The claim may stem from a note appended to a painting of a California grizzly bear, done by either Charles or Arthur Nahl. The following is an excerpt from Tracy Storer and Lloyd Tevis’ California Grizzly (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1996), and the Neuhaus article referred to within appears in the California Historical Society Quarterly, v. XV, n. 4 (December 1936), p. 302:
- Two original Nahl illustrations of a live California grizzly are in existence....The second painting, about 7 by 12 inches, now in Colton Hall, the city hall of Monterey, California, has the bear headed to the left; only the claws of the left front foot are pale; no grass is shown; and the body is dark (fig. 2). Appended is the following manuscript statement:
- This drawing is by Charles C. Nahl of San Francisco, in the period between 1850-1856. The original from which the grizzly bear of the California State Seal and nearly every representation of the grizzly were copied.
- From my own personal knowledge this drawing has remained in the Nahl family ever since to the presentation date June 21st, 1931.
- [Signed] Perham W. Nahl
- Prof. of Art University of California
- Title to authorship of this painting is slightly clouded by a remark in the Neuhaus article (1936:302) which states: “His daughter, Augusta Nahl Allen, of Portland, Oregon, is the owner of a drawing of a Grizzly Bear by Hugo Wilhelm Arthur Nahl from which the great seal of the State of California was made.” Professor Neuhaus, in answer to an inquiry, replied (letter, Feb. 28, 1953) that “the notation on the drawing in Monterey apparently stems from a divergency of claims within the Nahl family….either claim would be difficult to authenticate at this late date, but at least it seems safe to say that the original…was by one of the two Nahls in question.”
- The claim regarding the seal, however, cannot by correct, because the seal was designed and used (chap. 12) before the Nahl family arrived in California.
- Blcksx ( talk) 20:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I read this article with amusement, particularly concerning the many interpretations of the Great Seal over time and the many versions currently in existence. Yet, nowhere in the article was I able to find a link to a California statute that fixes the design of the seal in an unambiguous manner, so I added the "Legal definition" section. The code references a graphic that appears in the hard-copy printed version, which I haven't seen. In view of the myriad variations of the Seal in existence, the incorrect Wikipedia version is probably as good or bad as any other, but for accuracy, a photo or scan from one of the printed copies of the Government Code should be obtained and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I suppose it would be too much to ask, and incredibly lucky, to get a digital copy of the photo that was used in 1943 when the statute was codified. If the hard copy could be eyeballed by some Wikipedian, perhaps in one of the public County Law Libraries in California, it's just possible that a usable digital image from the hard-copy is already floating around on the Web.
As an aside, with the advances in computer technology, a graphic design could now be expressed as unambiguous printable script or code, such as Scalable Vector Graphics or PostScript, and the block of code could be included in the statute as an appendix, thus making further interpretation unnecessary.
Relevant links:
- http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=00001-01000&file=399-405
- http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=00001-01000&file=420-429.8
- The Color Association of the United States
-
http://www.colorassociation.com/
— Quicksilver T @ 03:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Recently there have been contributions which have sought to revert the SVG file for the state seal of California, perhaps out of a personal desire for its aesthetic and complicated design appeal, to a PNG file. As standard bearer, SVG files remain prominent as they do not take up much space when loading articles, and also serve as a professionalized simplification. The detailed PNG file is already listed within the article, and therefore replacing the SVG for the PNG (an alternative illustration, regardless) to the state seal is redundant. Also, the replacing of the SVG file for a PNG on other articles does not have any sound explanation. - TheLionHasSeen ( talk) 00:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- It would appear another contributor previously updated this by replacing to the PNG stating it was an update, however there is no reliable source stating the state seal was updated. - TheLionHasSeen ( talk) 01:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm in a heraldic community that is behind this. They think that since the PNG looks nicer from an artistic perspective and is more faithful to official renderings, it should be there instead of the SVG, and seem convinced that the best way of dealing with Wikipedia policy is just editing the page. One member even made a better SVG version, but they've had trouble uploading it so far. I've tried to tell them to take their concerns to the proper channel, but to no avail (tbf, I was in a sour mood). - Novov T C 10:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Mir Novov, perhaps this may the reason why ( 5 reasons you should be using svgs over pngs)? Overly complex SVG files may mess themselves up entirely, it would seem. - TheLionHasSeen ( talk) 05:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)