|
The binding shown above is found in a 1934 Maggs Bros. catalogue A selection of books, manuscripts, bindings, sporting prints and autograph letters remarkable for their interest, rarity & beauty. (click here to see it)
I have detailed this binding previously back in 2019 (see this) at the time I had never read Barber's books and just now, I see what he is trying peddle with his Padeloup and Derome theories. By chance I had discovered already this signed Padeloup binding that must be nearly identical to the one he mentions Mr. Bernard Breslauer has recorded CB 2 on the binding of a set of four volumes of plays given in the "petits appartmens" in 1747 to 1750 bearing Padeloup's ticket. Perhaps the Breslauer example does not have an elaborate dentelle (I have not seen it yet) but never mind, here in this binding shown above is exactly what this whole story is about, a Dubuisson decoration on a Padeloup signed binding. However Barber wanted to tie this in with his theory of how Derome acquired this tool that he calls CB 2, and thereby validate all the attributions he has made to Derome an the basis of the imprint of this tool being present in the decoration of certain bindings, there is only one catch, Derome never owned or used this tool, it is found in the Dubuisson tool kit. Barber needed proof that Derome bought Padeloup's tools to explain how it came into his hands and so he digs up Gruel's page 78, here is proof that Barber is another unscrupulous theorist… look what he has said in his reference 6: "Gruel records that Derome bought Padeloup tools" that is not what Gruel said, he said first at the beginning of his statement "dit- on" this is equivalent of "it is said" or "rumour has it" or "they say". So these remarks by Gruel are only, hear say, the repeating of an old story invented to explain how the tools of Derome looked so much like those of Padeloup, (without knowing that the tools were not actually those of Padeloup but in fact belonged to Dubuisson). Barber has unearthed this old rumor to validate his mistakes. To make matters worse he starts out on the top of page 273, by saying "First there is a body of evidence to show that the small right-facing bird, CB 2, belonged to Antoine-Michel Padeloup" this is false and it is based on false assumptions and rumours, he is spreading misinformation, to justify his blunders. Every example he provides can be shown to be a decoration by Dubuisson in a binding that was signed by Padeloup, This is so obvious, and yet even in these modern times people (so called experts) like Barber and the (BnF where they love to reference Barber on every possible occasion) are still promoting these lies. |
| In Comparative Diagram 3, we show Barber's imprint model of CB 5 (A) compared with Gruel's facsimile illustration (B). Barber has stated in his reference 6 on page 272 (shown above) The bird tool is not identical with any recorded for this catalogue but closest to CB 5. Our overlay diagram (A+B) shows in fact that these imprints are for all intents purposes, identical. Barber's statement is like him saying, "I didn't recognize my wife because she didn't have her hat on" what is he trying to avoid here? Other than admitting that Gruel's 1887 facsimile is spot on! |
| In Comparative Diagram 4, I show first CB 2 compared with pd-4 yes they are the same, however Barber failed to notice that there are 2 versions of this Dubuisson tool that look almost identical to the non-initiate pd-4 and pd-4-2. Barber has mixed these up in his analysis of W.Cat.647 but that is not all, this binding is covering a 1744 publication, Barber is oblivious to the fact that all the imprints found on this binding derive from the Dubuisson workshop and boldly states, without giving his reasons that this binding was probably made by N.-D. Derome around 1770… and finishes by saying… for further discussion of tools, particularly CB 2, see Chapter II, pp. 266-274… insinuating I suppose, that because he thinks he has found CB 2 on this binding it must have been made by Derome, its not even really CB 2 and this decoration was not made by Derome! |
| The reproduction of the binding shown above, No. 66, is from an invaluable 1955 catalogue LIVRES ILLUSTRES du XVIIIe siecle Librairie Giraud-Badin, Paris. In the information given for this item the auction experts who are unnamed, state that this binding has been attributed to Padeloup by Cohen-Ricci (col. 498), then then go on to say that this attribution is certainly correct because they themselves possess a binding signed by Padeloup on which they find several imprints identical to some found in the decoration of No. 66 and also in another shown in this catalogue (see item 54). This is my rough translation however what they are saying is rather obvious. |
| I am showing Item 119, that is actually Item 66 in a more recent auction, and also a color version of No.66. The exposure of the spines in the 119 reproduction, increases greatly what we know about this binding. The color representation then expands our vision of these Dubuisson bindings that is fully expressed in Comparative Diagram 8. We see again in the description, the names of Cohen and DeRici as well as Burnet. The magnitude of their false attribution is a dark stain on their names and a regrettable chapter in the history of Bibliophilia. |
| The binding shown above can be found in the relatively recent Camille Sourget catalogue 34 (see this). As soon as I saw this, I wrote to Camille Sourget saying that they have made a terrible mistake attributing this binding to Derome le jeune, however I never received a reply. After looking through their catalogues I came to realize that they are of the opinion that all bidings where you can observe a fer à l'oiseau, should be attributed to Derome, (in fact almost any dentelle for that matter). Can you imagine Dubuisson pacing up and down in heaven thinking about this insupportable injustice? |
|
|
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 |