| I found, after a long search, another Fontenelle (shown above) that is the same edition as the one shown on the previous page. This set is found in one of the first catalogues of Patrick et Elisabeth Sourget, entitled: Deux cents livres précieux de 1467 à 1959. circa 1985. Not only is this the same edition but it also has Padeloup's ticket inside, an amazingly lucky coincidence for our research into these bindings that were not decorated by Padeloup. Below in Comparative Diagram 1, we see the spines from the two examples of the previous page compared to this second Fontenelle example. Within each example there is an imprint shared with the others, quite a remarkable mixture of imprints, that together, confirm that they derive from the same workshop. |
| In Comparative Diagram 2, we get a really lucky break, here I have identified a known Dubuisson imprint that has been used to decorate the spine compartments. While I may have had my doubts about the palettes here is solid proof. Below I show Seymour DeRicci's signed binding example 13, he has shown it along with Padeloup's signature ticket. I have demonstrated a number of times that this binding was not decorated by Padeloup (click here to see this), all of the imprints derive from Dubuisson tools. This binding may have been executed in 1747 either by Rene or his son Pierre-Paul Dubuisson. What I wanted to point out here is a small and unusual palette, shown below in Comparative Diagram 3. |
|
In Comparative Diagram 3, I show what looks to be another proof that these bindings derive from the Dubuisson workshops, this same palette can be seen on all of the bindings. A closer look at the 1747 example appears to show that this palette may have been damaged with the top of the central star flattened or broken off (click here to see this at the bottom of the page). Looking closely at the Fontenelle and Moliere examples of this palette, It is easy to see that this is the same palette as shown on the Atalzaide binding, with three stars and only two dots, the middle star with a hole in the center. Although this palette is a bit short for the purpose on the larger bindings the craftsman found a way to add stars into the framework. this extra detailing exposes the fact that he was using a short 3 star palette. Now I want to point out something mysterious, it is the centrepiece fleuron in the spine compartments of this Fontenelle binding, I show it below compared with what seems to be an identical flueron that is found in a binding from the workshop of Rocolet. These fleurons look identical but how could a 17th century pointille fleuron suddenly show up on a 18th century binding? |
| In Comparative Diagram 4, I show what I think may be differences in these very similar fleurons. Green arrow (A) is pointing to the space created by a surrounding fence of pointille dots, arrow (B) is pointing to a simillar but significantly smaller space. In the Rocolet example these spaces appear to be more or less the same size, Green arrow (C) is pointing to a large gold dot at the neck of this fleuron, arrow (D) is pointing to the space on the chin of the fleuron. if we moved the dot on the neck into this space on the chin, it looks as though the dot would fill this space completely. In the Rocolet example, looking at these same parts, the gold dot would not fill the space on the chin. Thus there are some proportional differences, although this kind of work is greatly hampered by the low resolution of the Fontenelle reproduction, at best these results can only be considered speculation on my part. |
|
In Comparative Diagram 5, the blue arrows are pointing to gold dots that serve to show that the overlay is more or less aligned with the dots. The Fontenelle fleuron has been distorted horizontally in an effort to compensate for camera distortion, the right half of the fleuron has not been used due to an even greater amount of perspective distortion. I have kept both the overlay, which is a color reversed 50% transparent copy of the Rocolet fleuron, at the same scale vertically without distortion. Here we are truly clutching at straws but anyway... the green arrows are pointing out what I have surmised in the paragraph above, namely that there are some proportional differences in these locations and therefore these two fleuron examples do not derive from the same tool. This comparison reminds me a bit of the state of Climatology in this present age of fake science and scientific fraud, in an attempt to promote a political adgenda. Because I prefer to imagine that these two fleuron examples are not the same, it is an unlikely posibility that they are, although not an impossibity. I have attempted to show that they are not the same, and here one must always keep in mind a possible confirmation bias of the researcher. |
|
click here to return to the HOME page. click here to see an INDEX of the 2017 pages. 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 |