28-04-2018, 07:37 PM
Ha ha.
The accuracy is amazing. I've only spent a little time with it so far but the reproduction appears to be perfect. Remember that Yale approved this copy to be used as an official study aid. I've randomly dipped into it and compared with the scans - from lines in plants to the stands of hair in the nymphs to the words, all correspond.
I would say that the scans have been slightly improved digitally. The colours are more vibrant on the scans. But the book is more authentic. You could indeed imagine it to be hundreds of years old.
Your last questions merge Checking with the elephant I see a bit of its trunk is not visible in the scans. We have another finger appear, then the trunk continues down. For some reason the ink outline does not c continue down the right of trunk. This suggests to me that the original page was drawn once bound, contrary to other pages that extend over the binding boundary
The accuracy is amazing. I've only spent a little time with it so far but the reproduction appears to be perfect. Remember that Yale approved this copy to be used as an official study aid. I've randomly dipped into it and compared with the scans - from lines in plants to the stands of hair in the nymphs to the words, all correspond.
I would say that the scans have been slightly improved digitally. The colours are more vibrant on the scans. But the book is more authentic. You could indeed imagine it to be hundreds of years old.
Your last questions merge Checking with the elephant I see a bit of its trunk is not visible in the scans. We have another finger appear, then the trunk continues down. For some reason the ink outline does not c continue down the right of trunk. This suggests to me that the original page was drawn once bound, contrary to other pages that extend over the binding boundary
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)