In Comparative Diagram 5, I have reproduced Barber's DST type models 38 to 41 along with comparative examples from the signed Gosselin binding SALLUST 1772 as well as examples from the Sotheby reproduction shown at the top of this page. Note that Barber mentions the SULLUST 1772 binding, however he shows the DST 41 imprint at the wrong scale and mentions it as being in the H. Tenschert collection in 1999 yet it is found in the Sourget 1999 catalogue XIX?. The importance of all this is that if Barber had of noticed the signature of Gosselin on the spine of this binding he would have had to change completely his attribution of these tools to Gosselin and that would mean also having to change the description of dozens of other Gosselin tools that he ascribed to Derome le jeune, indeed a dreadful conundrum especially if he made this discovery after nearly completing his catalogue. Such is destiny that it can be changed entirely by a small obscure detail. However we must suppose that Barber never found this signature and the result is that the BnF have swallowed Barber's mistake without hesitation and resultantly propagated the error by attributing the work of Gosselin to Derome le jeune in their supposed Derome examples, such as this...
http://reliures.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cdt9xt0j/
"Si cette reliure ne peut être, en l'état actuel des recherches, nominativement attribuée à un atelier particulier, on peut en revanche souligner la proximité du matériel de dorure utilisé ici avec celui de l'atelier de Nicolas-Denis Derome, avec notamment, aux quatre coins des plats, la paire de traits anguleux associée à une paire de frondaisons striées à base recourbée (respectivement proches de Barber 2013, DCT 55 et FR 71), la roulette florale dorée au bord des plats (proche de Barber 2013, ROLL 49) et la double roulette à motif floral stylisé ornant les chasses (proche de Barber 2013, ROLL 98)."
This is an unforgivable error by the National Library of France, where are their own experts? why are they depending on Barber's tool catalogue? That we have now shown to be filled with innumerable attribution errors.
A lot of people; book collectors, booksellers, auction experts all over the world are depending on the BnF for an accurate high level expertise when it comes to attributions, their failure in this category in this age of ever faster computers, high speed internet, G5, artificial intelligence and all the rest, can only be deemed as unacceptable. This problem is not complicated, all that is needed is extensive cataloguing of the tools of each particular binder. Barber's system of cataloguing does not often identify the owners of the tools catalogued. The tools are arranged in an order based on their design or shapes with little or no information concerning who the tools belonged to. His information about which bindings such tools are found is on the other hand very useful and we are going to try to track down the bindings associated with these DST 38 to 41 tools that we know belonged to Gosselin.
|
