| Here we see W.Cat.784, that is linked to W.Cat.705 by Barber's FL 190 tool, I show it again on this page in Comparative Diagram 1, this imprint is another that has been illustrated upside down. This is obvious by the fact that the heart inside of it, is also upside down. |
| In Comparative Diagram 2, we see the correct orientation of this imprint on W.Cat.784, although shown in low resolution we can still see FL 190 clearly. Now as we are in the mood for corrections, I have to point out another serious error in Barber's catalogue, this concerns FR 71 and DCT 55. Really this is an obvious error, what decorator would go out of his way to make his life yet more difficult trying to merge these imprints into their exact positions, what a nightmare... no, this does not happen because these are not separate tools. |
| In Comparative Diagram 3 we see Dubuisson's first examples of this tool that I believe was inspired by one of his plaques, Rahir's No. 184b (click here to see it). I show some 1745 Dubuisson examples of these imprints from a binding in the BnF (click here to see it). Here the BnF claim that this binding comes from the workshop of Padeloup, I don't know how many more years it will be before they realize just exactly who decorated this binding that Marius Michel cannot say enough about, anyway the point is that you can see this digital reproduction in a 400dpi resolution where all the details are plainly evident, all the Dubuisson examples (pd-48a-2 and pd-48b-2) are identical which would be impossible if these imprints were in separate parts as Barber has suggested. The Derome examples that appear more than a decade after Dubuisson first introduced their use, are obvious copies of the Dubuisson originals. They are perhaps a somewhat improved design with the upper leaf not placed directly on the stamen. The Gosselin example closely follows the Derome model in size and shape the only real difference that you can easily observe is in the negative shapes inside the stamen. This is due to the wider v shape of the stamen's termination (some might call it a stigma). However these tools are not all derived from FR 71 as Barber has implied. He references the Wardour example, and this is what I show in this diagram under Gosselin's name however there are a few more errors in Barber's reference here, beyond the fact that these are Gosselin tools and not those of Derome le jeune. His text should read 'bound in Paris for Henry, 8th Baron Arundell of Wardour (d. 1808)'. Barber throws us for a loop with his (d.1769) date when we know for a fact that this binding was made in 1776. (see this page for the Wardour details) |
| In Comparative Diagram 4, we see a wildly extravagant pair of tools, Barber's FR 52 this should have seemed too over the top to be a Derome tool, and a sign that this briefcase was perhaps not decorated by Derome. Barber was undaunted by the ever growing number and variety of Derome tools and boldly attributes this as well to Derome le jeune, I have removed his attribution from the text line under this item because as we have seen on page 6 these briefcases were decorated by Jubert. Let me point out that if we see a handful of uniquely Jubert tools then we can assume that he decorated the item, he did not just do one part with his own tools and Derome the rest. Granted he was working for Derome and probably doing the work in Derome's workshop where he had access to all the necessary tools, however he was not just content to use the regular old Derome tools and introduced some of his new ones that were more up to date with the wild fashion trends of the day, more like the tools of Fetil and Vente. I may be wrong, however I do not see Derome using any of the updated 70's tools of Jubert, Delorme, or Gosselin et al. Derome had basically the same tools as Dubuisson and made dentelles exactly like the Dubuisson dentelles (see this example). |
| In Comparative Diagram 5 we see more Jubert tools, however they are less in number than found on the example shown in Comparative Diagram 6. A close study might reveal that the increase in the number of Jubert tools in these briefcases can be directly linked to a chronological sequence where only a handful of his tools are evident in 1774 and none of his birds and yet by 1780 we see a wider range of his tools and his birds.(see this page for another Jubert briefcase). |
|
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 |