| Two years ago I assembled most of the Plumet bindings that I had reviewed, on a single diagram (see this), looking at this we see that most of the Plumet bindings had the same corner tool, Barber's DCR 17. This alone is an unusual fact suggesting that the Plumet bindings that I had found so far were all probably from a similar period, and or that the Plumet bindings are limited to a short time frame. So I decided to look through Barber's tool catalogue for more DCR 17 bindings and found this one shown above W.Cat.235. In Barber's information about this binding we see that it was made after or around 1752. My first guess about this binding was that it is a real Douceur binding only due to the outer roulette on the boards, this same roulette, that is quite unusual and elaborate is found on Douceurs 1754 signed bindings (detailed here) so this could be a real Douceur and maybe was made around 1754 or later. On this binding we can see a rather rare Douceur tool that I have detailed previously but we can do it here again. |
| In Comparative Diagram 1, we see Barber's FR 63 and below it imprints extracted from W.Cat.235 we can see that Barber has failed to notice that this is not two separate tools but rather it is a single tool of a mirrored pair of fleurons with accompanying satellite dots (X, Y, X.) and ring (W). The green arrow is pointing to a flaw that may only be an accidental break that is not found in all examples however it does show where in this binding this particular example is found, i.e. at the top of the front board. |
| In Comparative Diagram 2, we see similar examples of this type, and you will notice that this Douceur example differs from the Plumet example found in our 1753 eBay Plumet Breviarium. So far so good we seem to be looking at a Douceur binding, if Plumet had decorated this binding we could expect to see his tool of this type and not that of Douceur. |
| In Comparative Diagram 3, we are in for an upset, W.Cat.235 has Barber FL 44 imprints and we know that these are not the same as the Douceur examples such as we found on the Ebay Plumet (page 2). In fact these are either Plumet W.Cat.422 or more probably Fetil W.Cat.636 examples. The arrows pointing to the easiest way to decern between these inprints, green indicating Douceur, and blue Plumet or Fetil FR 44. |
| In Comparative Diagram 4 we look at what must be DCT 54, we have studied these tools on a previous page (see this) Fetil was still using these tools in the 60's, while Douceur had his own set. In this diagram I show two imprints taken from W.Cat.235 these are X and Y next to them I show the same imprints taken from a 1764 Fetil binding A and B we can see that these are the same and the arrows are pointing to a leaf like protrusion emanating from the inner spiral. Although these are mirrored pairs this protrusion is not the same length in it's mirrored counterpart. However looking at Barber's DCT 54 model you would have to conclude that these are not the same tools as he shows the right side with a short protrusion, when all other examples show the right side as having the longer protrusion. However he cannot out smart us like this, as it is evident that he has reversed the left side imprint model to become the right side... why would he do this? I am still wondering, possibly this is the result of a printers error. In any case we see that this is probably a Fetil tool. |
| In Comparative Diagram 5, we see Barber's FL 37 and FL 38 that is actually Louis Douceur d-3 this is one of Douceurs favourite signature tools that he sometimes used as a spine panel centerpiece. Next to this I show a Plumet example, that is easy to distinguish from d-3 in as much as the "anthers" as Barber calls them are solid dots not circles, also the left stem uppermost leaf points downwards as opposed to the d-3 example pointing upwards. Now here is another conundrum if this was a binding by Douceur he would have most certainly used his d-3 but FL 37 is a seemingly reversed form of it, thus this is not a Douceur or a Plumet, one might guess it to be a Fetil tool but we have no proof, I have found no other example of this imprint. |
| In Comparative Diagram 6, we see at the top two Plumet examples pl-67a and 67b. Below these are 6 Louis Doucer examples, none of these appear to match the DSC 10 pair. |
| In Comparative Diagram 7, we see at the top DCT 20, that is linked to W.Cat.422 this could be a Plumet example. While DCT 21 may be a Fetil example, however a very similar tool is found in a 1774 Fetil binding (see this) it is found in the same loction, and yet is very slightly different. This is a sign I think that Barber's DCT 21 found here is not Fetil tool, nor a Plumet, nor perhaps a Douceur. |
| In Comparative Diagram 8, I have reconstructed a pair of fleurons that Barber did not catalogue, which is quite unusual as he is usualy more thorough. However to show these imprints requires some manipulation of the image that Barber may not have wanted to attempt. Below in Comparative Diagram 9, we see all of the W.Cat.235 examples of this pair of fleurons, and from that you can guess what the probable shape might be. In any case this pair is not found in any other bindings (including all Douceur, Plumet, and Fetil) that we have discovered so far. |
|
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 |