|
We see on this page, two bindings that Barber has referenced to his tool DCT 25. Both of these bindings also have the PAL 44 pallet, Barber sites this pallet as a sure sign of a Derome binding even though we do not see a single Derome tool anywhere, this is such an obvious mistake on his part that one wonders if his catalogue system served any purpose other than confusing him completely. If this pallet is found on bindings signed by Bisiaux we might suspect that if the same pallet was found on any Derome bindings you can assume that Bisiaux made them while working for Derome, otherwise why do we not see any Derome tools on the W.Cat.408 or W.Cat.233 and if they were indeed there surely Barber would have been quick to point them out! Strangely Barber has not catalogued all the tools on these bindings leaving out some critical tools that appear in all of the Bisiaux bindings thus far examined. Another thing that we cannot help but notice is the matching design and tool arrangements in these two bindings. I suspect that they may have been made around the same time i.e. 1779 and not 1775 as Barber has suggested for W.Cat.233. We have looked at the PAL 44 pallet on another page (see this) When I was working on that page, I was still not convinced that these bindings could be attributed to Bisiaux, however now in the face of mounting evidence, I am going to show again my eBay 1785 Paroissien that I did not detail fully last year. The imprints on this binding are identical to those found on W.Cat.233 and W.Cat.408, the similarity in the design and the PAL 44 pallet all suggesting that perhaps all of these bindings could been made even later than 1779 or around 1785. |
| You will see from the photograph above that this 1785 Paroissien is small, smaller than the averge cell phone (about 13.8 cm in height). Now we are going to look at some high resolution scans of imprints that are from common tools shared by these bindings, in the hopes that their specific characteristics and or defects will help us to identify them elsewhere and lead to further discoveries. |
| In Comparative Diagram 1, we are looking at one of a pair of what Barber calls "fronds" although he never bothered to add these examples to his catalogue even though both are plainly visible in W.Cat.233 and W.Cat.40. Fortunately we can now see them at a 2400dpi resolution. The green arrows in this diagram point to what might be called identifiers. They are unexpected details that are relatively easy to see. The arrow at "a" is pointing to a flat angular surface where one would not expect to see it, (if it was expected to be emulating it's counterpart). similarly arrow "b" is pointing to a flat angular surface. While arrow "c" is pointing out a shocking hole, what happened here, why is there an unexpected bite out of this frond? You might call this a defect and it is plainly visible in all specimens. |
| In Comparative Diagram 2, we see the green arrows "a" and "b" pointing out more flat angular surfaces we can only surmise that they have been made this way deliberately. Green arrow "c" is pointing to something that is either a defect or an accidental bend perhaps, certainly it is an unexpected feature in this place, reminding one of some dangerous jaws about to strike! This pair of fronds are very similar to those of René-François Fétil as shown in Comparative Diagram 3, these imprints are shown at the same scale, there can be little doubt that one pair is the copy of the other. |
|
click here to return to the HOME page. click here to see the 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 |