|
On this page we look at a 1200dpi scan of the Cantiques corner decoration (found on the back cover lower right). Here we see some familiar Derome imprints and perhaps the most important of these is the del-3-2 imprint that I show in Comparative Diagram 1. This same imprint is found on the spine of a signed Delorme binding that you can see in the digital collections of the Bibliotheque Nationale de France. This signed, highly decorative binding bears the arms of Marie-Antoinette Queen of France (click to see this). This is probably the most convincing proof to show that Pierre Delorme was no ordinary binder, but rather one who had reached a very high level in his career and indeed in the art of decorative bookbinding in the 18th century. Of all the great artists of this period he is one of the least known. All and Sundry know the name of Derome le jeune, without realizing that many of the bindings attributed to Derome were in fact the creations of Delorme, particularly the mosaics. Below I show again the Delorme binding from which I have extracted another imprint del-3-2 also shown in Comparative Diagram 1. This binding bears the arms of the Queen of England Sophie Charlotte according to the Rahir catalogue from which this reproduction derives, inside there is a dedication to the Queen again proof that Delorme's work was highly valued and his decorative talents fitting for such a Royal gift (see this page for more about this binding). |
| In Comparative Diagram 1, we see three examples of del-3-2 these are very similar to Dubuisson pd-3, We compare an example from LE TEMPLE DE GNIDE with one that comes from Delorme's signed binding and then our Cantiques example, these are shown greatly enlarged and a close examination shows that these imprints probably derive from the same Delorme tool. Even with enlarged imprints a difference in the direction of the lighting or the age of the imprint, or the age of the tool itself, all combine along with differences in the leather, temperature of the iron, and manipulation of the iron all conspire to yield imprints that might not necessarily look identical. Therefore a single imprint may not be enough to make an attribution, where as a dozen imprints from the tools of a single binder can combine to forge a strong case for an attribution. Barber has made a number of mistakes in this regard particularly in the case of the PAL 36 and FL 32 imprints. Jubert and Gosselin both used tools that resemble closely PAL 36. When you try to track down examples of PAL 36 you may find that there were several binders with tools of this type. Delorme appears to have used this tool for many years, perhaps provoking imitations. |
| In Comparative Diagram 2, I have extracted the corner imprints from the binding of LE TEMPLE DE GNIDE, If you study these closely you will see something that eluded me right up to when I was making making comparative Diagram 4. In Comparative Diagram 4, I have assembled 8 examples of an imprint that we can call del-25-2 this imprint is very much like the Dubuisson pd-25-2. Previously I had catalogued one of these tassels as pd-25. Now to be honest I had ignored these small tassels, Barber shows only one example that is shown in Comparative Diagram 3 In Comparative Diagram 5 we see 4 Dubuisson pd-25-2 examples (A, B, C, D, ) from a 1745 binding, they are found on some of his earliest bindings. You will notice that there is a dot inside the ring. Due to the way the Delorme imprints has been placed over the base of del-6-2, the dot is not so noticeable, however in the Dubuisson examples this dot is larger and very obvious. Review now the examples in the above diagrams and this dot becomes more evident. |
| In Comparative Diagram 4, I have assembled 8 examples of an imprint that we can call del-25-2 this imprint is very much like the Dubuisson pd-25-2. Previously I had catalogued one of these tassels as pd-25. Now to be honest I had ignored these small tassels, Barber shows only one example that is shown in Comparative Diagram 3. Note that example (b) and example (e) are the same imprint with reversed lighting, the cut in the dot below the ring is an accidental defect that is not found in any of the other examples |
| In Comparative Diagram 5 we see 4 Dubuisson pd-25-2 examples (A, B, C, D, ) from a 1745 binding. These are found on some of his earliest bindings. You will notice that there is a dot inside the ring. Due to the way the Delorme imprints has been placed over the base of del-6-2, the dot is not so noticeable, however in the Dubuisson examples this dot is larger and very obvious. Review now the examples in the above diagrams and the del-25-2 dot becomes more evident. |
|
n Comparative Diagram 6 we compare imprints from the Cantiques corner with del 37 pair that we have documented previously (see this page) Note that the Cantiques examples seem old and worn compared to the Type models that are from a 1764 Breviarium. Barber has catalogued this tool as FR 22 with a reference to W.Cat.8 here we have Delorme's tools decorating a binding that Barber attributes to Derome, I show these imprints extracted from W.Cat.8 in Comparative Diagram 7. |
| In Comparative Diagram 8 I show W.Cat 8, that Barber attributed to Derome along with W.Cat. 9. He goes into a long song and dance about these bindings with hand painted armorials placed under mica. Barber presents a seemingly authoritative discourse about these bindings and the protective mica etc etc. however he was completely wrong about who it was that actually decorated these bindings. Imagine the injustice of this, poor Delorme turning in his grave, and worse than that is the fact that people like Heribert Tenschert are churning out fancy coffee table books that are filled with Barber's misinformation. When you pretend to be an expert but just parrot the attributions of people who should know but don't, then you are exposed as someone who doesn't really know what he is talking about. |
| In Comparative Diagram 9, we compare the framing roulette, found on Delorme's signed binding (his signature is found within this roulette), with the roulette that is found on W.Cat.8, the blue arrows pointing to the same defects found in both examples! Barber goes into a long discourse about this tool that he catalogued as ROLL 116 and as usual brings up Michon and Derome in the process, if however he had of noticed Delorme's signed binding boldly on display in the Bibliotheque national de France due to the arms of Marie-Antoinette Queen of France (that are also found on W.Cat. 9) he would have had to change or indeed rewrite much of his book. In fact however it seems unlikely that Barber did not know of this Delorme bindiing. Here the house of cards falls and you either sweep them under the carpet or start over from the beginning. |
|
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 |