Neither the plant nor the text are very close at all.
The fictitious folio number has been written on the bound side of an obverse page.
The darker blue spots on the plant aren't there, veins and a leaf have been added, the roots have been changed entirely, as though the roots were drawn without seeing the original. Crosshatch shading has been added.
The initial gallows has an extra row of dots. The first bench character has been rendered as two "c" shapes. The "oin" has been changed to "ad". Three significant changes/errors in the first word-token. The capped bench has been turned into two "6" shapes (which don't exist in the VMS "alphabet"). The space between the two "9" chars has been omitted and the next bench char turned into "or" the next "o" into a "d". All of that is wrong just on the first line and the rest of it is just as bad.
So, either the person trying to transcribe it had poor observation skills, or didn't spend enough time looking at it and dashed it off, or had something very unclear to work from (a fuzzy pinhole camera photo maybe??). Or perhaps it's a copy of a copy? Or, if it's a fraud, rather than a bad copy, they simply added what they thought was needed with the thought that the original wouldn't be available for comparison?
It's really strange. Parts of the text look like they tried to get the stroke order and slant correct and other parts are way off. Imagine if you had an original that had been exposed to dampness (so that some letters weren't clear), and part of it were missing (the right hand side and the bottom, for example), and you tried to recreate it—you might end up with something like this. The root looks more like a contemporary interpretation of a Juliana Anicia drawing than a VMS drawing.
The fictitious folio number has been written on the bound side of an obverse page.
The darker blue spots on the plant aren't there, veins and a leaf have been added, the roots have been changed entirely, as though the roots were drawn without seeing the original. Crosshatch shading has been added.
The initial gallows has an extra row of dots. The first bench character has been rendered as two "c" shapes. The "oin" has been changed to "ad". Three significant changes/errors in the first word-token. The capped bench has been turned into two "6" shapes (which don't exist in the VMS "alphabet"). The space between the two "9" chars has been omitted and the next bench char turned into "or" the next "o" into a "d". All of that is wrong just on the first line and the rest of it is just as bad.
So, either the person trying to transcribe it had poor observation skills, or didn't spend enough time looking at it and dashed it off, or had something very unclear to work from (a fuzzy pinhole camera photo maybe??). Or perhaps it's a copy of a copy? Or, if it's a fraud, rather than a bad copy, they simply added what they thought was needed with the thought that the original wouldn't be available for comparison?
It's really strange. Parts of the text look like they tried to get the stroke order and slant correct and other parts are way off. Imagine if you had an original that had been exposed to dampness (so that some letters weren't clear), and part of it were missing (the right hand side and the bottom, for example), and you tried to recreate it—you might end up with something like this. The root looks more like a contemporary interpretation of a Juliana Anicia drawing than a VMS drawing.