| In the high resolution scan shown above I show a typical arrangement of imprints, imprint mm-5 is partially covered by mm-1. In Comparative Diagram 1, shown below, we see the collection of the mm-5 imprints, all have been partially obscured by the mm-1 imprint, therefore we must try to imagine what the imprint would look like without being covered by mm-1. Notice too that in all these examples the three dots placed in the middle of the imprint are always in exactly the same position, this indicates that they must be part of the original tool, the mm-5 imprint comes with these embellishments. |
| In Comparative Diagram 2, examples "a" and "b" are actual scans of the imprint. Example "c" is a quick reconstruction of the imprint showing how it might appear with 6 petals. In all the examples shown in Comparative Diagram 1, we see that in no case is there any sign of a six petal arrangement. Therefore in example "d" I have created a 5 petal model for this imprint. Shown below as the theoretical type model for mm-5. |
| In Comparative Diagram 3 we see just how similar this type of imprint was, starting from around 1748-50 with the Dubuisson example. Ten years later Derome le jeune was using a very similar tool from about 1760 onward, similar but different enough to recognize them as being different, Dubuisson's has 7 petals, Derome only six. However Jubert also had a tool of this type that was so similar to Derome's we need to look at them closely in Comparative Diagram 4. The MM binder model was different although following closely the Derome form, but differing with a five petal variation and dot embellishments. |
|
In Comparative Diagram 4 we see Juberts imprints on the right and Deromes imprints on the left. If you were to see these imprints with the naked eye on separate bindings there isn't much chance that you would notice any difference at all and probably you would be tempted to say that these imprints all derive from the same tool. However looking more closely you notice that the legs of Derome's model are longer. Look at the negative spaces at the lowest point of the imprint on both sides. Still some could argue that is was due to the amount of gold in the various imprints. The scale of all the imprints is far from certain as well, these are reproductions from photographs. When we have at last, high resolution scans we can be more certain about the differences or lack of them. We can say for certain however that neither the Jubert nor the Derome tool was manufactured with central dot embellishments included as in the MM Binder example. It is interesting to note that Derome often placed gold dots in the middle of his type 5 imprints, and that the MM binder tool was made to include them. On the next page we will look at some MM Binder tools from our 1768 Office, that I have not seen previously. |
|
click here to return to the INDEX of new (2017) pages. click here to return to the HOME page. see below links to previous work |
| Even experts are sometimes wrong, before you spend thousands on a book, please do your own research! Just because I say a certain binding can be attributed to le Maitre isn't any kind of guarantee, don't take my word for it, go a step further and get your own proof. In these pages I have provided you with a way of doing just that. |
| Virtual Bookings, created by L. A. Miller | return to the Home page of VIRTUAL BOOKBINDINGS |