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

[Noble, Richard]

In fact, the project would do us an immense service if it included a layer
of generic, "if in doubt" terms, for the use of practitioners who lack the
expertise or, perhaps more importantly, the time, to be as specific as they
might be under more favorable conditions. The simpler such terms are as
verbal constructs, the better, since the users of e.g. online catalogues,
and the administrators of those who make them, can be taken only so far with
overly precise imprecision.

RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-3384 : RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU


On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 11:09 AM, John Lancaster <jjlancaster at me.com> wrote:

> Donald -
>
> I’m not sure we want to do either of the things you suggest - determining
> the term used in the trade at the time might be even more difficult than
> determining what animal provided the skin (since we have the latter in hand,
> while the former is not necessarily well documented - was the leather sold
> as “morocco”, or “turkey”, or “Levant” … ?).  [A somewhat similar case
> arises in dealing with later patterned cloth - does it make sense to use the
> Winterbottom codes rather than a descriptive phrase, e.g “T cloth” rather
> than “rib cloth”?  Especially if a cloth was not made by Winterbottom, and a
> less well-documented manufacturer’s codes are lost to us.]
>
> More commonly, I think, we’ve tended to describe bindings, not using the
> terms of the trade at the time of production, but rather using the terms
> that have been in general use in the bookselling business in the twentieth
> century.
>
> What the Ligatus project seems to me to be aiming at is a vocabulary that
> will provide a clear description of what exists on the book now, regardless
> of how it might have been described at any point in past time.  In doing so,
> they aim - rightly, I think - at the most precise and accurate relationship
> between term and object that can be achieved.  As with any verbal
> description of a visual object, achieving this goal in a widespread way will
> depend in large part on having clear standard images that are readily
> available to cataloguers and anyone else who is describing bookbindings -
> another aim of the Ligatus project.
>
> Of course, achieving that goal will also depend on the ability of the
> observer and the condition of the material - hence the need for general
> terms that can be used when it’s not possible to differentiate between, e.g.
> goat and hairsheep.
>
> It’s always possible to add to a description whatever further information
> of a historical nature one might wish - it would take little time to add a
> qualifying phrase to a description if that’s thought to be useful.
>
> To answer your final question, I think we are writing our descriptions to
> provide - for anyone - as clear a visual image of the binding as a verbal
> description can convey.
>
> John Lancaster
>
>
> On Jul 22, 2011, at 4:11 PM, Donald Farren wrote:
>
> 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
> djleslie at folger.edu | 202.675-0369 | 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/20110724/b81a5640/attachment.htm