| Now that I have been able to scan the 1768 Office at 1200dpi I can return to the research I was doing several years ago, comparing the tools of the MM Binder to those of Jean-Pierre Jubert. At that time I created a diagram showing certain tools that are nearly identical, found in the collections of these two binders. I know some people might think that I am a little obsessed with this work, however there is a good reason to do it. Imagine that even today the most respected experts are not able to discern between a Derome and a Dubuisson, nor can they identify a Derome from a Jubert let alone a Jubert from a binding by the MM Binder. Now I can show clear proof of the differences with these high resolution scans. At the bottom of this page is my 2010 Comparative Diagram, even though this can be enlarged to 300 dpi it is no where good enough to be able to see clearly the differences. Even at 600dpi the smaller tools are not distinct enough to be sure of the differences. At 1200 dpi we find irrefutable proof. In Comparative Diagram 2, below, I show catalogue examples for imprint 19, they are shown at 600 dpi. These examples are not detailed enough to make a clear distinction between them. |
| In Comparative Diagram 3, I show the mm-19 examples at 1200dpi here we can at last see important details such as the defects pointed out by the green arrow. The Jubert examples are only a 400dpi size enlarged to 1200, again the detail is lacking, however we can now clearly see differences between these and the MM Binder examples. Ideally we need 1200 scans of both. These Imprints are of a nearly identical size and shape and so small that you could not with the naked eye identify them with certainty, even with a magnifying glass you may not be able to make an attribution, mainly due to the fact that these imprints are rarely found on their own isolated from other imprints, and often the imprint will be blurred either due of excess gold or wear and tear. |
| In Comparative Diagram 4. I show all 4 examples of this mm-54 imprint. Each example is obscured or obscures to a certain extent, and the type model is not to be considered perfect, as you can see from the examples the top of this imprint is never very clear nor are the arms. This model will satisfy basic identification, however absolute identification will require a careful study of the imprint examples. |
| In Comparative Diagram 5, we see the mm-54 imprint next to the same type imprint in a binding by Jubert. I can not find, for the moment a better Jubert example, this one is from Raphaël Esmerians 1972 catalogue, Volume II, item number 120 which he incorrectly attributes to Derome. Esmerian was caught up in the snowball effect of one expert in the past making a bad call, and all the following experts not taking the time to really investigate the matter. I would site Emile Dacier as the most authorative (influential) expert who was also deceived (see my page on this). Our research has shown that Jubert did some work for Derome, sometimes even using the tools of Derome, this has thrown the experts for a loop. However for me it is clear. Jubert made decorative bindings for the Queen, Marie Antoinette, and when you look at the biography of the Queen you can imagine that she would have insisted on the best. He also signed some of his bindings in the same period. From Jubert's signed bindings we can discover which tools are Jubert's. When you research this issue thoroughly you discover that many of the bindings that are attributed to Derome, were actually decorated by Jubert, with Jubert's tools. Occasionally the spines of these bindings were executed with Derome's tools and the bindings carry Derome's ticket. Thus the cause of a massive amount of confusion. However! It is still possible to separate the tools, Derome had his own set of tools, we can see entire bindings with only Derome tools and his ticket inside. In 1885 a signed binding by Jubert sold at auction for what was then an astronomical amout of money for a binding, this to me suggests that within a century the collector value of Jubert's work surpassed that of Derome! The MM Binder made bindings for the King, so we might consider that these two binders were anyway at the top of the ladder when it came to decorative bookbindings. How or why they had nearly identical tools remains an unanswered question. |
| On the next page we are going to look at a tool that was a favorite of many mid 18th century French decorative bookbinders, one that I wasn't surprised to find (at last) in the MM binder collection. |
|
click here to return to the INDEX of new (2017) pages. click here to return to the HOME page. 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 |