+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Imagery (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-43.html)
+--- Thread: Plant pictures as composite images (/thread-844.html)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Plant pictures as composite images - Oocephalus - 26-11-2016
(26-11-2016, 03:19 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The first screensnap looks like the residue from two bell-shaped flower heads that appear to have been pressed against the vellum. This is not a stain from the other side.It's not a stain from the other side of the same folio (f26v), but from the opposite folio, f27r. I've attached a screenshot of the relevant detail. This is another piece of evidence that the painting was only done after the folios had been reordered, as the dialect of f26 is Currier-B while that of f27 is Currier-A.
A trace of the other thing you found (I'm not sure what it is) can also be found on f27r:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: Plant pictures as composite images - -JKP- - 26-11-2016
(26-11-2016, 03:59 AM)Oocephalus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(26-11-2016, 03:19 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The first screensnap looks like the residue from two bell-shaped flower heads that appear to have been pressed against the vellum. This is not a stain from the other side.It's not a stain from the other side of the same folio (f26v), but from the opposite folio, f27r. I've attached a screenshot of the relevant detail. This is another piece of evidence that the painting was only done after the folios had been reordered, as the dialect of f26 is Currier-B while that of f27 is Currier-A.
A trace of the other thing you found (I'm not sure what it is) can also be found on f27r:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Of course, you're right, Oocephalus. I looked at the opposite folio (specifically seeking one that might have stained the opposing side) and I don't know how I missed it. Tired, I guess (I work 90+ hours a week so I'm always a bit ragged and sleep-deprived).
So I withdraw my statement that these stains help confirm the idea, but I'm still pretty sure, based on having worked with both live plants and herbarium specifimens, that a number of the plants are drawn from dried specimens.
I also think I may have seen a blotch in another place that wasn't a stain, but looked like an actual piece of a flower. I think it was pinkish, but I don't have time right now to hunt it up and double-check (I saw it a couple of years ago). It's amazing how many parts of the manuscript I only visit biannually, even though I look at it so frequently.