[DCRM-L] FW: [EXLIBRIS-L] Seeking leather bookbinding ID references

Fri Jul 22 14:11:02 MDT 2011

Some other thoughts to supplement the caveats of Deborah and the practical
considerations of John.

Apparently Ligatus will provide us means to identify scientifically the
beast whose hide is on our books. Is that what we want? Or do we want to
write the term, however unscientific, that was used by the book trade for
the leather at the time it was applied? I suggest that we want the latter if
we are documenting the production and distribution of books rather than the
history of skin. However, a conservator would want to know the beast. For
whom are we writing our descriptions?

Donald Farren

4009 Bradley Lane

Chevy Chase, MD 20815-5238

dfarren at concentric.net

voice 301.951.9479

fax 301.951.3898

mobile 301.768.8972

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of John Lancaster
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 12:54 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Cc: Nicholas Pickwoad
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] FW: [EXLIBRIS-L] Seeking leather bookbinding ID
references

Deborah - 

What descriptor(s) do you recommend in place of "morocco"?  Especially given
the difficulty determining whether a given skin might be goat or sheep, or
knowing what the binding trade at the time might have called it (and given
that the term has long been in widespread use among book people of all
sorts)?

I'm not advocating the use of the term, but if it is to be avoided or
replaced, there needs to be a shared understanding of what any terms used in
place of "morocco" actually refer to - which is where the Ligatus glossary,
and particularly the photographs illustrating the terms, will be
indispensable.  Roberts and Etherington write in detail about many
possibilities, but without standards to test examples against, it's very
difficult to be sure whether one is using any given term accurately.

I too eagerly look forward to the Ligatus glossary.  I hope it will offer a
hierarchy of terms, such that a cataloguer can use some general term in the
absence of the ability (for whatever reason) to determine what animal the
skin came from, or what tanning or graining method was used, or where the
skin originated.  

John Lancaster

On Jul 21, 2011, at 9:42 PM, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:

Most of you will perhaps have seen this, but for those who haven't: it's one
of the reasons I advise catalogers against using the binding descriptor
"morocco." It has meant a number of things over time. In addition, there is
a species continuum between sheep and goats. I am all anticipation of the
binding glossary promised by NP.

__________

Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare
Library
 <mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> djleslie at folger.edu | 202.675-0369 |
<x-msg://908/www.folger.edu> www.folger.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Rare book and manuscripts [mailto:EXLIBRIS-L at LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Nicholas Pickwoad
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 04:20
To: EXLIBRIS-L at LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU
Subject: Re: [EXLIBRIS-L] Seeking leather bookbinding ID references

I would like to inject a small note of warning into the discussion 

about using modern samples of leather for the identification of 

historic leathers used on books. The animals whose skins were used 

have changed over the centuries, and the hairsheep that was one of the 

most common sources of leathers for the booktrade will not feature 

among modern samples. This is important for the identification of 

skins on books, as it is these skins that are the hardest to identify 

(calf and pig are, by comparison, quite straightforward) as the skins 

of animals bearing coarse wool hairs as well a fine ones produce skins 

that are virtually identical to goatskin. The modern sheep, bred 

increasingly to eliminate the coarse wool hairs, has a skin that is 

entirely different in appearance.

The problem is compounded, not simplified, by the term 'morocco'. In 

France the term 'maroquin' was used to describe the highest quality 

skins of the type today found in northern Nigeria. Following the 

traditional habit of the European leather trades, the skin was named 

after the country from which it was shipped, in this case Morocco, 

where the native-dyed skins or possibly undyed crusts, were given 

final treatments, including dyeing, before export. It was for this 

reason that the same skins were known as 'Turkey leather' in Britain, 

as British merchants were only allowed to trade with the Ottoman 

empire through the port of Smyrna (modern Izmir). The British leather 

trade used the word  'morocco'  for the skins traditionally thought to 

have been procured in the 1720s for Edward Harley in Fez in an attempt 

to make good the short supply of Turkey leather in the early 

eighteenth century. The skins were bright and colourful and were 

imported directly from Morocco (hence the name), but were taken from 

hairsheep, not goats, and they have proved much less durable. The 

English booktrade maintained the distinction between 'turkey' and 

'morocco' leathers until at least the 1780s.

Any sample book must, if it is to be helpful, use macro-photographs of 

genuine period skins identified by experts in such matters, but when 

Ronald Read (author of Ancient Skins, Parchments and Leathers, already 

cited in this correspondence and still far and away the best book on 

the subject currently available) admits that telling goat from 

hairsheep skins can be impossible by visual examination only, we need 

to be very careful in jumping to conclusions. Our ongoing work in the 

Ligatus Research Centre on a glossary of bookbinding terms is to 

include a set of such photographs, but that is, I am afraid, a year or 

two away as yet.

Nicholas Pickwoad

Professor Nicholas Pickwoad, River Farm, Great Witchingham,Norwich, 

NR9 5NA.

E-mail: npickwoad at paston.co.uk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20110722/7191841e/attachment.htm 