Tendrilfrid Voynich?

[Koen G]

The best argument against it being intentional so far is that it wouldn't match the drawing style of the other sections at all. That's a valid point, but on the other hand I've argued before that some symbolical elements in the botanical sections deviate significantly from the standard Voynich style. My favorite examples are this surprisingly accurate You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and this You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. which puts all other Voynich hands to shame.

Possible elements in favor of an "intentional face" interpretation that have been named so far are:

- The tendril does not curl like natural tendrils.
- The tendril is much longer than other Voynich tendrils.
- There is overwhelming evidence of other symbolic plant parts in the botanical sections.
- It looks much "cleaner" than accidental face shapes (see the IDAHO example).

I would like to add to that the observation that usually these accidental faces don't show clear facial traits. If you look at the examples I took from the Wiki, the vase faces look as generic as can get. The IDAHO face looks like a leprosy victim with an overly large forehead.

In the Voynich face we see decent proportions. Just like the hand in the root I linked has much more natural proportions than the usual Voynich stumps.

We could also tell quite a bit about the facial features:

• round nose
  
• probably a moustache
  
• long, wavy beard
  
• possibly bald head
  

If we allow the berries to play a part as well, they could represent tufts of hair or maybe even a garland or crown.
Any ideas what or who this could be? Generic old man? Maybe even a king? 
Probably not Darwin