Cancer
triple_entendre
It doesn't look too much like any other astrological symbol, so it wouldn't matter to me (and I actually am a Cancerian, whatever street cred that gives. 
)
)Gia
#1 is correct
Minderwiz
I agree but interestingly John Frawley uses both in his Horary Textbook. I suspect that this is a composting error at the printers, though. Certainly in hand drawn charts from the Seventeenth Century #1 is the one used, though the two 'fat bits are drawn over each other with the 'tails sticking out to either side and without curvature.
I've just checked a couple of Frawley's other books and he does the same in his other books. The difference appears to be that he uses #2 in tables or lists generated by his Word Processor and #1 in all his charts and in tables taken from other authors, such as Lilly. If Frawley is using such a WP font, I suspect others will do so too. I'll check my computer fonts and get back ion the results.
Richard
Thanks for the responses. The wingdings font in the character map for Windows shows it like the first symbol, and this is the way I think it is usually written. I have, however, seen it the other way and was mainly wondering whether both ways might be correct.
Minderwiz
I think the best answer is that #1 is the most used and probably the oldest but clearly #2 is in use and in situations where clearly it is intended, rather than a printing error. It's a brave person who says that that is categorically wrong. Also as said earlier it clearly does represent Cancer, and can't be confused with other signs.
cardlady22
This jolted my curiosity, so I looked through my handwritten notes. Interesting that I always write it in the #2 form.
