|
In Comparative Diagram 1, we see 5 of Pierre-Paul Dubuisson's decorative bindings, that span the early years of his career. We have reviewed others from this early period on previous pages, some of these bindings have been commissioned by Padeloup as evidenced by his ticket pasted inside, usually at the bottom of the title page. However this first one shown here (A) has a J.A.Derome ticket which may not be authentic, I say this due to the fact that Leon Gruel who was the first to document this binding, shows in his 1905 Volume II, a facsimile of the ticket which in many ways does not match similar Derome tickets (see this on the previous page). The fact is that in the past many people believed that Padeloup le jeune was the artist who decorated these bindings, today it is easy to prove that real and only genius behind these decorations was Pierre-Paul Dubuisson. Giles Barber has called this group Bindings with Interlace Tools. |
| In Comparative Diagram 2, we can observe that these two models are very similar in size and form yet the first example INT 1. was employed by Derome le jeune decades after Dubuisson. This is really the only one of these INT tools that Derome used and we can see that it is a wanton act of plagiarism and was employed by Derome in an identical fashion imitating the original decorative genius of Dubuisson. |
| The Dubuisson original can be distinguished from the Derome copies by the bars at the acute bend of the straps. |
| In Comparative Diagram 4, you will notice that the Dubuisson decoration involves a network of INT tools whereas Derome employs but a single INT tool. I say Derome, however it may very well be that this decoration with Derome tools was in fact executed by Jean-Pierre Jubert. |
| Notice again the extent to which Derome went to copy the tools and design genius of Dubuisson. In the centuries that followed, the creations of Dubuisson were attributed to Padeloup, due to a number of Padeloup tickets found in these bindings while Derome's copies of Dubuisson tools further confused the situation. Right up to the present day rubbings are used to record and catalogue imprints. The Derome copies are not detected by rubbings! |
| In Comparative Diagram 7, we see 2 examples of the Dubuisson imprint pd-10-2 (Barber's DCR-20) I show them in this orientation rather than as they are shown in Barber's catalogue. In most cases these imprints sit on their feet, however if they are used as a corner tool, which I think is rare, then they are sometimes rotated with the crown pointing downwards. |
| In Comparative Diagram 8, we see a detail from a Dubuisson dentelle (binding 54) that shows two pd-10-2 imprints in their normal orientation. |
| In Comparative Diagram 9 we see that Barber's imprint model lacks the upper dot, we know that there should be two dots as many examples attest to its existence. (See examples of Derome le jeune bindings with dj-10-2 corners here and here and here and here and here). |
| We see in Comparative Diagrams 9 and 10 the great similarity in the Derome dj-10-2 compared with the Dubuisson pd-10-2 original, in size and shape these imprints are nearly identical. Rubbings will not be accurate enough for you to be able to see the differences in these small imprints. These are hard to see even with scanned examples. Note also that Barber only shows one dot in his imprint model DCR 4, when in fact there should be 2. |
|
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 |