(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.
?!? I'm not sure what "one thread per theory" really means. It is infeasible to isolate the numerous theories about the manuscript so that they are mutually exclusive. There is far too much overlap between all the theories and ideas that are the whole purpose of this forum. I presume though that you really mean "one topic per thread"?
(29-10-2025, 06:06 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.
Proto57's post prior to yours -- which is presumably the one you are referring to -- WAS on topic! It was not about whether the manuscript is a modern hoax (!?). it was directly addressing the "absence of evidence" argument that was being made to suggest that conclusions could be drawn if another letter were found with the same watermarks. That is, obviously, well within the scope of this thread's topic -- at least to the extent that the comment it was responding to was within scope. If a thread cannot include commentary on the strengths and flaws in the arguments being made, then there's little value left in most ANY of the threads on this forum.
Frankly, anyone who reads it as a discussion or defense of a modern hoax theory is completely missing the several relevant and valid points that were made.
As I already asked, please PM me if you want to discuss how the one thread per theory rule is applied. Let's keep on topic about the watermark here.
By coincidence, yesterday I received some additional inputs related to this type of watermark.
As expected, there exist several variations. I'll wait until I have a more complete feedback, but there is nothing really new so far.
(30-10-2025, 07:26 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Titanium is a common contaminant of iron minerals. Its presence in sample 17 does not imply forgery. The Vinland Map was exposed as forgery because its ink contained not just titanium, but a titanium white -- a specific synthetic mineral of titanium that only became available in the last 200 years or so.
This is a good example of what Tavie pointed out: hashed and rehashed.
For an earlier discussion see (among others) here: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
especially posts in the 20's+ range.
Let's stick to the watermark here.
(Had the watermark been from 2 centuries later - or earlier - we would have to have the other discussion).
Edit since three posts above have now been moved. They can now be found You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.; You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.; and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
Third and final time I'm saying this in this thread. If you disagree with how the one thread per theory rule is being applied, PM the relevant moderator. Please do not litigate it in the thread, since one reason for the rule is to stop threads being derailed with arguments.
I received no PMs on this and the thread is still getting derailed with modern hoax arguments so I'm going to move most of the recent posts to the modern hoax thread. This thread will be locked until I can find the time later today to untangle them from what should stay.
Also, I was looking at watermarks earlier. I have no where to put it now everyone is in off-topic jail..
So I will put here if anyone is interested.
Here are some examples I found.
Many do not have much detail and the reference links go to sites that no longer work.
The ones that do have dates are from 1642 (tracing of watermark) and 1681.
1642 - You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
1681 - You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
[
attachment=11867]
[
attachment=11868]
[
attachment=11869]
Thread reopened. I've moved a few posts to the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. so that their points can be debated there. Happily, I managed to do it without breaking anything.
Going forward, I'd like to ask everyone to please use that thread for advancing points specific to the Modern Hoax theory. If you want to argue the watermark is evidence there was a modern hoax, then the Modern Hoax thread awaits you. And if you want to declare that the watermark rebuts the Modern Hoax theory, then the Modern Hoax thread awaits you too.
Let's use this thread as we were for its first half: to learn more about the watermark without triggering a debate about the manuscript's authenticity. If you want the latter, you can find it in the location above.
(31-10-2025, 08:20 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I wonder if the original poster, or an admin, could move You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. here.
I'd like to add You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. to that post, it says Memmingen 1630, but sadly so far I've failed to find anything else about it.
This is similar to the one in the previous post from Garlonga:
[
attachment=11955]
It's dated at about the same period, February 13, 1637 (from a notary document from Salò, a town on the shores of Garda Lake in northern Italy)
[
attachment=11956]
From a 1990 book on the watermarks of paper mills in the region of Brescia (the main city near Salò):
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
I didn't include it previously as I'm unsure how relevant, but as it lines up fairly well with your examples Mauro, I'll add it here.
I have no idea if the later style of "Three Hats / Tre Cappelli" is directly linked to the older style with tassels, but I suppose it might be relevant.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
[
attachment=11957]
[
attachment=11958]