The Voynich Ninja

There's a large beige stain running vertically on f93r.  We might be able to infer something about when colors were added to the manuscript, in particular whether it was before or after they were placed in their present order, from examining it.  Some things to consider:

1) Is this stain the same substance that has been used to color in the "inflorescence" of the plant on the same page?  It looks that way from the scans.  Maybe someone who has seen the VMS in person could comment on this.

2) It looks like the stain started at the bottom and flowed "upward", eventually running off the top of the page.  As it did so, it looks like it picked up some green pigment from the leaves of the plant and transferred it along into the upper part of the stain.  From this, as well as looking at how the stain overlaps the green leaves, it seems clear that the green must have already been present when the stain was formed.  But was the green still wet when the stain was formed, or could the pigment transfer have occurred when the green was already dry?

3) Were the pages already in their present order when this stain was formed?  This is obviously an important question, but the answer to me is not entirely clear.  There does in fact appear to be a small stain at the top edge of f94r, f95r, etc. corresponding to the location where the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. stain runs off the page.  However, these stains do not, to my eye, appear to have a beige color.  Also there seems to be some water damage to the top edge of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that may not be related to the beige stain.  So perhaps this damage to the top edges of these folios is unrelated to the beige stain, and just coincidentally happens to be in the same spot, unlikely as that may seem.

Well, I'd like to know what others think about this.  Obviously if the stain is one of the colors used in the illustration and the stain formed after the pages were in their present order, then at least the beige (and possibly the green) were added while the pages were in their present order.  On the other hand, if the manuscript was not in its present order when the stain was formed then the beige and green must be original.  If the stain is not in fact the beige used in the illustration, and if the green pigment could have transferred into the stain while the green was already dry, then perhaps we cannot draw any conclusions from this.

I thought long and found only one explanation could be as a formed as a the long narrow blotch on f93r. See sketch. Drawings made on an incline the desk. The paint was very fluid. The artist has painted the head of "sunflower", put a brush on jar of paint and distracted from the work. Due to the capillary effect, (which is created by the hairs of brush) along  the handle of the tassel  flew down on the sheet, as long as the hair ceased not to touch the paint. Such an effect is observed, when brew disposable tea bag when the water flows down onto the table, by the filament  of sachet . 

The You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (missing page) affected the darkening of the middle  of blots.

That sketch alone deserves a thank you. I see no problems with that explanation. That would probably mean the MS was upside down on the desk, which seems logical given the top location of the flower. 

II'm not sure if this allows us to say something about the green ink. It seems like the brown ink was so watery that it could make wet as well as dry green ink run.

It's directly before two missing folios (91 & 92), so it's possible that whatever was spilt mainly landed on the bifolio opposite and caused them to be ruined, or so badly damaged that they were later discarded. So it could be some sort of transfer from those pages.
But a great explanation by Wladimir!