DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am trying to collect a set of silverware, and I'm still confused because the names of pieces are not always the same. I keep seeing a "place" spoon (and occasionally a "place" fork and "place" knife that seem to be luncheon sized).

Unfortunately, "place" doesn't describe the spoon's purpose to me. In my pattern, there are advertised: a cream soup spoon, a place/oval soup spoon and a dessert/tear shaped soup spoon. I think that is one too many soups (not counting bullion and gumbo).

Is the "place" spoon really the dessert spoon? Does the soup spoon care if it has an oval or tear shaped bowl? Is buying silver making me obsessive compulsive?

I will not even ask about the cocktail/seafood fork/oyster fork /pickle/olive/lemon fork dilemma since they all look alike to me. As for the 5'o'clock spoon, or the "youth size" utensils, I thought Miss Manners had declared the age of inventing new silver pieces over.

GENTLE READER: Indeed. The key is the date at which Miss Manners declares a cut-off. On a bad day, she thinks that maybe 1797 would have been a good time, in which case any of us would be lucky to be issued a fork. Then again, she remembers all the fun she would be missing if the world were bereft of strawberry forks.

The so-called "place" pieces are a comparatively recent attempt at simplification. Between luncheon and dinner size, they are supposed to fit not only any time of day, but any course. As you may suspect, Miss Manners does not quite like them, but not because she wants to complicate people's lives and ruin their budgets.

Her objection is that they make it difficult to serve a meal with more than one course requiring a fork and knife. You can do it by buying double sets (or by running to the kitchen sink between courses), but it looks redundant. The old method, before the mid-19th-century proliferation of specialized utensils, was to have a small set (not only for luncheon service, but for fish courses and such) and a large set (for the main course).

There was also a large oval tablespoon that was used for clear soup served in soup plates, a round spoon used for cream soup served in soup cups, a smaller round spoon for bouillon, and a medium-sized oval spoon used for dessert. How's that for your peace of mind?

In any case, these distinctions have been largely lost, but Miss Manners would rather see the oval soup spoon used for dessert than the teaspoon.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I have a sister that constantly sends birthday gifts, Christmas gifts, etc., early. By early, I mean, sometimes as much as two months in advance.

I find this rude and odd at the same time. When asking her why she does this, her answer is so that she does not forget, since she travels so often (does not have a traveling job).

I personally am just as offended in this as I am in her potentially being late or forgetting entirely. To me, it demonstrates her inconsiderate ways in not caring about the meaning behind a specific important event and or date. How would you propose dealing with this, and, is it "normal"?

GENTLE READER: It is normal, Miss Manners gathers from far more disgruntled letters than yours, to send presents late. Or to forget to send them at all. Or, as in your case, to quibble instead of being grateful.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I gave a relative a pot of poinsettia as a hostess gift, thinking it was festive and appropriate for a holiday visit. The hostess received it saying "Thanks, isn't this poisonous?"

I was embarrassed and dumbfounded (managed to grit my teeth into an almost-smile and told myself to not mind -- but obviously I cannot "not mind it"!). I was also angry at myself for not having a glib reply.

Belatedly, a friend suggested "That's why we got it for you," but I doubt my ability to carry off cheeky responses with aplomb. Is there a remedial school somewhere for catty comebacks?

My husband claims that it is just sarcastic humor. I think it shows ill manners and ungraciousness. There shouldn't be room for sarcasm in thanks, except perhaps among very good friends who share the same sarcastic wit. And in a social situation, isn't it arrogant to assume that everyone will love and enjoy one's sarcastic wit applied liberally?

I probably would not be this miffed if the comment had been said by someone I have experienced as a nice person. In the few times I have been in social contact with this woman, she's had no qualms about sharing her critical opinions of anyone and everyone who is not in the room -- including people I like and respect and consider to be my friends. What could I have said at that moment?

P.S.: I researched poinsettias as soon as we got home, and found that there is a commonmisconception that poinsettias are toxic. They are not very toxic, but those sensitive to latex may suffer an allergic reaction, and, if eaten, poinsettias may cause diarrhea and vomiting in people and animals.

GENTLE READER: Then how about "You'll be fine as long as you don't eat them"?

No, Miss Manners supposes not. In spite of your research, you might consider this to be joking, which you have disallowed.

Fortunately, earnestness works just as well. You could have taken her by both hands, given her a look of deep concern and said, "You know I would never do anything to hurt you. I only hoped to please you." If possible, make your lip quiver when you say this.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Our daughter-in-law constantly takes Christmas and birthday presents we give to her and our grandchildren back to the store and either trades them for something entirely different or gets cash refunds. Most stores will take returns without a receipt if a customer is demanding enough.

She does this without our knowledge and no one tells us unless we specifically ask where a present is. It is her thought that once a gift is given it belongs to the person and they can do as they please with the gift. Any thoughts?

GENTLE READER: Yes: Stop asking where the presents are. Your dissatisfied daughter-in-law is right about that.

You might, instead, ask your son-in-law for guidance about what might please the lady. However, since she also returns the children's presents, Miss Manners suspects that the answer might be that nothing pleases her except what she selects herself.

In that case, leave it alone and be grateful that you are not told about the exchanges or, worse, given instructions to do the exchange yourself. In a desultory way, the arrangement is working.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: The invitation to my office holiday party just arrived and I'm fuming. The invite says that I should bring "a spouse, significant other or date." Is it acceptable for the hosts to specify what categories of guests are permissible, or have these people stepped over the line?

GENTLE READER: Those poor people who were assigned to write the invitations! Miss Manners' heart aches for them.

They used to send these invitations in the names of employees and their husbands and wives. But then they began getting angry reactions from female employees and wives of employees who had not taken their husbands' names or who had, but wanted to be addressed by their own given names as well.

To avoid dealing with these complications of names and honorifics, there was a switch to the generic "spouses." This produced angry reactions from employees whose marriages had ended and who wanted to bring new interests, from employees whose marriages had not ended but who wanted to bring new interests and from employees whose interests had not ended but whose marriages had not begun.

So they added "significant other." This produced angry reactions from the single employees who were not significantly attached but who did not want to attend alone, so they added "date."

Now what are you fuming about? If you want to bring your nephew, your neighbor or your fourth-grade teacher, there are not likely to be objections.

They could have added that everyone could bring "a guest," but by this time, their nerves were shot. What if it turned out that some of the employees lived in menages a trois?

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I was at the bank the other day to straighten out a statement issue and something odd occurred: As the gentleman tended to my business, his phone began to ring. And ring. And ring. Then it stopped. He then briskly wrapped up my business and bade me a good day.

I have three questions:

Did he exercise proper manners? I thought that in present day America, when one received a phone call one answered it, regardless of circumstances. Was I out of line to be utterly stunned by this turn of events. Is the end of the world nigh on?

GENTLE READER: It must be, if it is possible for you to believe it rude not to desert a live person -- and not just any person, but yourself -- who has come into someone's work place in favor of taking a telephone call.

True, someone should be taking that call. Miss Manners sympathizes with the caller, who is listening to a recording about how important the call is to the bank and being asked to punch an endless series of buttons that he cannot find while listening to the instructions because the buttons are in the part of the telephone he has to hold to his ear.

But this should not be done at the expense of leaving you sitting there while someone who presented himself later is helped.

: