Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4446Re: Digital collection

Expand Messages
  • Susanne Krause
    Dec 10, 2007
      Hi Jake,

      sorry for the delay, I've been up to the neck in a big project.

      There is primarily one aspect I feel needs to be kept in mind in this
      connection. If a classification is given to illustrate the contents
      of Fichtenberg's book written 150 years ago, then it must be declared
      as such and everything is as it should be. If, on the other hand, a
      classification is meant to be useful today to a person in need of a
      term to describe a decorated paper unknown to them, the latest
      findings of researchers in the words of today are what is needed to
      make the meaning clear today, as much as we don't any longer thee and
      thou each other.

      It begins with the fact that none of those patterns is a marbled
      pattern and that, for the patterns in question, the term papier marbré
      has been discarded today in favour of papier decoré, and it doesn't
      end there.

      That virtually all decorated papers have been called marbled quite
      frequently in the past centuries does not imply that we should keep
      that mode of speaking up.

      Susanne Krause

      --- In Marbling@yahoogroups.com, "Jake Benson" <jemiljan@...> wrote:
      > Hi Susanne,
      > The terms Papier Tourniquet, Papier Coulé, and Papier Croisé are
      > all found in Fichtenberg's Papiers Des Fanatasie. Paris, 1852. Samples
      > that closely match the images in the database can be found on "Cartes
      > d'Echantillons" samples at the back of the book. Planche 2 "Papier
      > marbrés d'Anglaise et Francais", nos. 11 (Coulé), 12 (Croisé),
      > and 13 (Tourniquet).
      > Also shown on the same leaf, no. 16, is a sample of "Papier Agathes" is
      > As you say, the sample is not the same as Papier Tourniquet. It has
      > features somewhat reminiscent of the Papier Croisé, but it is not
      > exactly the same. I do believe the term is derived from "agate" stone,
      > but I also know that there is a term "cailloute", although I wonder if
      > the latter is appled more often for what we call "shell" in English.
      > If you look at the samples on the site for the Papier Croisé, it does
      > mention that it is one of the three styles of d'Annonay papers:
      > IELD4=type&CISOROOT=/dp>
      > "This pattern is amongst the d'Annonay papiers attributed by Wolfe (pg
      > 113) to F.M. Montgolfier beginning around 1830.
      > Papier Coulé is one of the three types of Annonay papiers.
      > Identifying this amongst the three styles of Annonay papiers
      > distinguishes them as amongst the two Wolfe categories of 'imitation or
      > pseudo-marbled' papers attributed to French creation (Wolfe paraphrasing
      > M. Fichtenberg also suggests that both the Germans and the French made
      > versions of each others' pseudo-marbles at the same time so discerning
      > the absolute country of origin varies often). All three of the Annonay
      > papiers were, according to Wolfe, created in the same basic way though
      > their end results came from the way in which they were finished be it
      > splattered, sponged, etc.
      > Papier Coulé is related to the other Annonay papers but is closest in
      > appearance and creation to Papier Croisé. The difference being that
      > in a Croisé the wet paste is allowed to trickle in multiple
      > directions whereas a Coulé is only run in a single direction."
      > Personally, I wonder use of the term "Turkish" routinely applied solely
      > to "spot" or "stone" patterns in the database seems to me a bit
      > antiquated and imprecise. The use of the term "Turkish" was once used
      > by many European writers (though there are notable exceptions such as
      > Sir Thomas Herbert) to describe all marbled papers. The sample book of
      > the Augsburg manufacturer Georg Christoph Stoy, which Haemmerle thought
      > dated to about 1730, shows combed designs, rather than spots, associated
      > with this term (see Wolfe, p 21 and plate IX). About 250 years later,
      > Halfer uses the term "Turkish" only for spot patterns in his "Progress
      > of the Marbling Art".
      > Jake Benson
      > --- In Marbling@yahoogroups.com, "hamburgerbuntpapier_de" <studio@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > Now I've finally found the time to glance through the pictures, and I
      > > feel there are some things I should say.
      > >
      > > Croisé would be dribbled paper; my French customers use the term
      > > papier coulé.
      > >
      > > The 'bench marbled papers' are not marbled at all, as is mentiones
      > > somewhere on the site. The term is just another piece of evidence for
      > > the dominating role of marbled papers among all decorated papers, now
      > > and in centuries gone by. Most of those 'bench marbled papers' were
      > > made in sprinkled techniques.
      > >
      > > Tourniquet and Agathe patterns are not the same. The term tourniquet I
      > > have never heard before; the correct term in German is Gustavpapier.
      > > Agathe is definitely wrong, that's a girls' name. What I suppose they
      > > mean is agate paper, agates being semi precious gems. Some agate
      > > stones have feathery veins very close to those on the agate papers.
      > >
      > > Gustavpapier is what is shown on the other photoes, i.e. sprinkeled
      > > with ragged edges and rims in contrasting colours. These contrasting
      > > colours are achieved by additives to the paints. Sprinkles in agate
      > > papers are monochrome, predominantly black, with feathery edges. There
      > > is no agate among the 45 pictures. No. 11 is a sprinkled paper, the
      > > others called tourniquet are Gustav patterns.
      > >
      > > If the dating of 1713 as mentioned for no. 37 is right, I'll eat my
      > > hat. Both Gustav and agate papers were 19th century, mostly produced
      > > in industrial or at least semi-industrial process (and to reproduce
      > > them by hand is hellish). While it is perfectly possible that the book
      > > mentioned was bound for the first time, this happenend certainly not
      > > in 1713 with this very cover paper. Another possibility is that, while
      > > the binding was not touched, only the covering paper was changed into
      > > something more modern, an effect frequently seen by restorers. This
      > > would leave the first binding intact and is, if done on a high
      > > professional level, only visible for a specialist.
      > >
      > > Susanne Krause
      > >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic