| The reproduction the binding shown above is found in a LIBRAIRIE SOURGET - MANUSCRITS ET LIVRES PRECIEUX - CATALOGUE N° XXI, published in the year 2000, page 288, lot 112. After search for every Boyet binding that I could find for quite a long time, you come to suspect that there are a lot of bindings that look like Boyets but in fact are only clever copies of the style of Boyet. This binding shown above was for me very suspect, I didn't think that Boyet used this kind of double bird tool. There are plent of examples of this kind of tool however I never saw one on a Boyet. However there was one tool that made me think that this could actually be a Boyet. Below I show an enlargement of a spine panel from this binding. Between the branches in the corners we see on the sides a tool that I have seen on a few other Boyets and documented in high resolution on another page (click here to see it). |
| In Comparative Diagram 1, we see high resolution scanned examples from a 1689 Boyet campared with these 1688 examples, even though the 1688 imprints are quite low resolution we can still see a very strong possibility that these imprints derive from the same Boyet tool. In as much as the shape of this tool is rather unusual with a double top that is slightly skewed to one side, it is doubtful that a copy could precisely imitate the overall out of kilter look of this tool. |
| In Comparative Diagram 2, you are thinking that these two spines have a lot in common, however the palette in our 1688 example does not match the 1689 example or for that matter any other in our list (which is far from complete). I decided to test everything. |
| Comparative Diagram 3 is the condensed result of dozens of attempts to try to establish whether or not the 1688 palettes were the same as Boyet palette VII, you cannot do this with old Boyets where the tooling has lost its definition, my first attempts were with old tooling and I was sure this was a fake, however when I tried the very fresh tooling of a 1652 Biblia (click here to see the page on this Biblia) I found the proof I needed. The green arrow (A) is pointing out that this head has shifted over slightly to the left shoulder (easier to see in the enlargement). The arrow (B) is pointing to a sharp bump on the shoulder and the head has moved to the right of center. Arrow (C) is aimed at the very sharp termination of the stem which does not touch the base. This sharp point is the shortest and sharpest of the palette and allows one a point of reference by which you can align all samples. The combination of these details amounts to convincing proof that these palettes all derive from the same Boyet tool. |
| In Comparative Diagram 6, which compares a high resolution scan to low resolution photos as well as Metivier's Boyet example (black and white), we see perhaps that there is a difference in these imprints. In Comparative Diagram 5 and 6 it is a very tough decision to say yes these imprints are different, or no they are not. If this is a copy it is a masterpiece on a microscopic level. Is it even possible to make such a perfect copy? There are differences however all the differences can be due to accidental gold on the tool. We can see for example that the top branch (A) in Comparative Diagram 6, has extra gold that is shown by arrow (a) this gold is not seen in other examples of this imprint, arrow (b) is pointing to something similar however this is seen in all the examples of this branch imprints on this binding. Arrow (c) is pointing out an annomaly that is seen only in this example. Therefore there are many to things to be considered when comparing imprints, that may, or may not be the same. |
|
Lastly we look at the palettes in Comparative Diagram 7, starting with palette II from the Isabelle de Conihout & Pascal Ract-Madoux 2002 classification and the palette from the 1698 binding which looks to be the same, there are no shoulder pads evident, whereas the 1688 palette has pads. The green arrow is pointing out an odd feature, which is either a shoulder pad gone wrong or something worse, this defect that is not seen elsewhere in the palette examples from our 1688 binding suggesting that this might be longer and or a roulette. The roulette G is not the same as it demonstrates a significantly wider spacing of its motifs. In conclusion, I suspect that this is a real Boyet however we need more proof, another part of the problem here is that the dimensions given for this binding are probably not correct. When I increased the size of the VII palettes by 7% then things started to fit... only a 6% increase over all would bring the binding height to 173 mm instead of the 165 mm listed. Without precise measurements where would science be today? |
|
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 |