The Voynich Ninja

(13-10-2025, 07:04 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(13-10-2025, 06:45 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.it is too difficult to get the scale correct.

The VMS pages are said to be ~235 mm tall.  On most single-page BL 2014 images the tallest pages are ~3570 pixels tall, which gives a scale of ~15 px/mm or 386 px/in or 0.0658 mm/px.

For the Marci letter, one could get a rough estimate from the folds reported by Rene, assuming that they were meant to make the letter fit inside the cover. 

All the best, --jorge

That is a logical process, and I actually tried something similar to what you describe. I also tried it with other letters from the Carteggio, which do give better dimensions and images.

But I think an actual, hands on measurement would be better at providing the necessary precision for those close chains and line counts. The Voynich page size varies, which you reflect with your "~235 mm" estimate. And I don't personally know that the folding of the Marci letter was to make it fit inside the cover. Even if it were, it could have been folded smaller, and not accurately to the edges of a page... or, the cover.

In fact a friend just let me examine his amazing Siloe copy, which is very accurate... but I think the folded Marci letter (even assuming that it was cut perfectly accurate to the original) was a bit smaller than the width of the Vms pages. Also, the folds lines of the Marci letter do not make sense as a letter, or an envelope... they are sort of wonky.

In a perfect world, if all those variables were not variables, and so on, your idea would work. But I think there are too many variables and unknowns to apply it with sufficient accuracy in this case: To compare to other papers, so see if they could be from the same or different source.

By the way, it might be of interest to see this... I was trying to identify the watermark on one of the Carteggio Marci letters, and it is different than the 1665/66 letter. It is some roundish design with three balls at the bottom. The three balls often appear in "foolscap" logos, but there is not enough detail to know if that is the case, here, on 557_64R:

[attachment=11688]

That alone tells us that Marci... if the Marci letter "found" in the Voynich is real... used a different paper than at least one of his letters, without doing a chain/line count. As Lisa suggested, and I long wished for, it would be very interesting to see all the Marci letters in the Carteggio, and elsewhere, to see when... and if... he every used a paper with the three hat watermark.

Using the same 400 dpi scan of the Marci letter, I could measure the horizontal and vertical sizes of the watermark according to the two arrows:

[attachment=11689]

width = 5.1 cm (between the edges of the hat rims),
height = 2.1 cm (bottom of hat rims to highest round top).

The other letter shown by Rich is from 12 January 1641, so more than 20 years earlier.

(13-10-2025, 11:34 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.By the way, it might be of interest to see this... I was trying to identify the watermark on one of the Carteggio Marci letters, and it is different than the 1665/66 letter.  That alone tells us that Marci... if the Marci letter "found" in the Voynich is real... used a different paper than at least one of his letters, without doing a chain/line count. As Lisa suggested, and I long wished for, it would be very interesting to see all the Marci letters in the Carteggio, and elsewhere, to see when... and if... he ever used a paper with the three hat watermark.

A match would be interesting information, but a failure to find a match would not be, right?  Marci must have written more than a hundred letters per year, not to mention notes, worksheets, book extracts, laundry lists, ... And he had secretaries writing for him.  I imagine that they would buy paper in packets of 100-200 at most.  Therefore it would not be surprising if two letters written decades apart, one by Marci and one by his secretary, used paper from different makers.

All the best, --jorge

I agree, Jorge - it would be great to find another Marci letter with the same watermark, but if one doesn't survive, there won't be any conclusions to be drawn. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's worth remembering as well as that the letter at the Beinecke was written by Marci's secretary, so that might impact the paper stock that was being used.

(14-10-2025, 12:47 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Using the same 400 dpi scan of the Marci letter, I could measure the horizontal and vertical sizes of the watermark according to the two arrows:



width = 5.1 cm (between the edges of the hat rims),
height = 2.1 cm (bottom of hat rims to highest round top).

The other letter shown by Rich is from 12 January 1641, so more than 20 years earlier.

For what it is worth, (and not surprisingly) I have measured these same distances directly on a Siloe facsimile (which is claimed to reproduce the exact sizes of both VMS and Marci letter) and get very close to those same measurements as Rene (5.1cm and 2.1cm).

It would be interesting in case the paper end leaves in the MS itself have any watermarks, but I have been told that none have ever been observed. This may warrant another look. 

I do not expect these leaves to date back to the creation of the MS. Instead, they can be from any (re-)binding. Top on my list of suspects are the Roman Jesuits. The parchment guard strips in some of the quires might date from the same occasion. 
These could in principle be carbon dated but let me be the first to say that this damage and expense is not warranted by the limited information that could be obtained from it.

The endleaves are almost certainly from the 19th-century binding. And I have not observed visible water marks on those endpapers, although imaging might make them legible. But as you say, the results would not really warrant the expense. It wouldn't really tell us much that we don't already know.

[Edited to say post above was moved:  new location of post is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.]

OK, I'm stepping in here before we have another round of this debate.  We have a policy of one thread per theory.  Discussions about whether the manuscript is a modern hoax should stay on the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..  Let's keep this thread on topic.

(29-10-2025, 06:06 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.OK, I'm stepping in here before we have another round of this debate.  We have a policy of one thread per theory.  Discussions about whether the manuscript is a modern hoax should stay on the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..  Let's keep this thread on topic.

Thank you, Tavie... but a couple of points:

- I am responding to topics directly challenging and supporting the issue of genuine vs. fake here, I've not introduced it.

- Because every discussion, for that matter, on any of these threads, is directly relating to the nature of the Voynich, such as origin and meaning, but also age and authenticity

- In this case, determining the origin and use of the watermark in question is very much on topic, and so are the arguments Lisa, and others, put forth to defend any present or future inability to find such a watermark, and what it means.

So trying, as you just did, to filter out any related discussion that mentions the modern forgery possibilities, I think is inappropriate. I've very much stayed on topic, and I hope given some readers at least, "food for thought" on the watermark, seal, folds, "absence of evidence" adage, all topics on this very thread.

EDIT TO POINT OUT: "Genuine 1420" is very much a theory, as any other, including Modern Forgery.. yet, the 1420 Genuine theory is on every thread, and not isolated to just one, as you suggest mine and other alternative theories do. All theories overlap all evidence, either fitting or not the particular evidence being discussed.

Please take it to PM, Rich.