| The reproduction of the binding shown above is found in one of my favorite catalogues LIVRES ILLUSTRES du XVIIIe siècle. A Paris Librairie Giraud-Badin 128 Boulevard Saint Germain 1955. While the binding on the previous page did not reveal a likely date of production, this binding could not have been made before 1774. There are significant differences between this work and the bindings of Fétil in the mid 60s that we were looking at in the first few pages of this expose of his bindings. Here we see decoration that appears to be very familiar, at first sight we would guess that this is a binding by Louis Douceur, so we must carefully examine all the imprints to be sure that there is not a mixure of Douceur tools. Starting with the first most obvious Fétil imprint in Comparative Diagram 1. |
| As on the previous page, we test in Comparative Diagram 1, an imprint from a proven Fétil binding Davis565 compared with an imprint from this 127 binding. An overlay test shows that these two imprints probably derive from the same Fétil tool and also shows that the scale of binding 127 is accurate to within 1 percent. |
| We know from the previous page that René-François Fétil was incorporating Douceur tools in his bindings from as early as 1765, in the above binding we are now in a post Douceur period. A careful examination of the imprints reveal that Fétil has acquired some new tools that appear to be Douceur hybrids, such as the that shown in the diagram above, rf-2. In Barber's tool catalogue we can see the Doucer example d-2, he has catalogued it as DCT 41, however he does not show the Fetil example rf-2, this is a good sign indicating that rf-2 is probably a Fétil tool. |
| In Comparative Diagram 2, we see firstly the Douceur example of this type, d-6. In this 1774 binding by Fétil he has used a tool that we have not yet catalogued it resembles his 1765 tool catalogued by Barber as DCT 16, again this is a sort of Douceur hybrid that I have catalogued as rf-6. Barber does not have this exact tool in his catalogue. He shows a very rough copy of what I think is Douceur's example d-6, this he has catalogued as DCT 15. |
| In Comparative Diagram 3, we see what Barber has called a bulbous vase tool, he has carefully catalogued at least 15 of these imprints yet this 1774 Fétil example is not amoung them, this tool was very popular at this time, I suspect that many binders had at least one, I have not dived into researching them but I think it is a good sign that Barber did not find this exact one, I have catalogued it as rf-bv 1. following Barber's lead. |
| In Comparative Diagram 4 we see yet more Fétil tools, as far as I know these are not Douceur tools, he has something like this but with differences. Barber has identified it as FR 3, and I know that this is the same tool as it appears on his W.Cat. 636 binding, we will get to that binding eventually. The important thing that we can observe in this 1774 binding, is that all the tools so far examined have proven to be Fétil tools and not those of Douceur. Such as the imprints below that look a bit like a Douceur tool. Barber has something in his catalogue very similar DCT 21. yet not the exactly the same. This tool may be very important as a sort of signature tool, as we may see further on. |
| In the diagrams abover we have extracted most of the major imprints from this 1774 (or later) Fétil binding, all the imprints have been from the tools of Fétil, there are no Douceur tools, unless very small. In Comparative Diagram 5, we see an important imprint. The kind of tool that produced this imprint was owned by a number of different binders in this period. Barber has catalogued a good number of examples however for the DCR 13 he lists only W.Cat. 636, we know already that this is a Fétil binding and not a Douceur to whom it was mistakenly attributed by Barber. |
|
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 |