| On this page we are going to look at some of the imprints found on the spine of our eBay Plumet. There are no raised bands which is a bit unusual if this binding was really made in 1753, as I assume but even so the leather is not flat and somewhat deformed which then means that scanning it on a flat bed scanner will not yield good results. The problem is due to the very shallow depth of field in flat beds. The only option left is photography, which can yield excellent results however leaves the problem of scale. To get around this I combine a scan and a photo that has been resized to match the scale of the 1200dpi scan. |
| In Comparative Diagram 1, we see the somewhat blurred scan next to a photo shown at the same scale. The scan although blurred maintains the correct longitudinal proportions and the photo has been resized to fit longitudinally and from this we can extract imprints that are at 1200dpi size. |
| In Comparative Diagram 2, we compare our eBay Plumet example with Barber's PAL 75 that derives from a 1744 Douceur binding. We can see an obvious resemblance, one tool is a copy of the other with small differences. Barber's example has 8 petals whereas our eBay example has 12. |
| In Comparative Diagram 3, I show a spine detail from a Plumet binding that we have studied previously (see this) This is found on an ERASME L'Eloge de la Folie that dates perhaps to 1751. Even though we can see only a part of this pallet, we see 12 petals and an identical leaf shape. |
| In Comparative Diagram 4, we compare a corner from our eBay Plumet with a ERASME corner, here almost all the tools are different yet we see FL 73 has been employed in an identical fashion. |
| In Comparative Diagram 5, an experiment to see if these imprints are really the same and derive from the same tool with an overlay procedure. Here the ERASME imprint has been inverted and reduced to a 50% transparency then placed over the eBay imprint. These imprints match up so well that we can say with confidence that they derive from the same tool. However strange as it seems this same imprint is found in a 1766 Fetil decoration (see this binding) . |
| In Comparative Diagram 6, we compare our eBay FL 73 with a Fetil example with an overlay to show that these imprints are indeed the same. |
| In Comparative Diagram 7, we see another look at these imprints, how can we explain that this same imprint was used by Fetil a full decade after Plumet?. The timing of these examples becomes an important issue. There are two possibilities that I have explored in the past, one is that Plumet and Fetil worked together, or perhaps Fetil acquired Plumet's tool collection? Even stranger is the fact that certain Fetil tools turn up in Delorme bindings (see this example) (and this) |
|
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 |