16-07-2020, 04:25 AM
I am imagining the greeting card, however it goes beyond that since you have to have a plan for how multiple greeting cards go together in the end for the opposite r's and v's to work out. If it were an original work i think you would start with an r, then to the other side, then, only if you are ready, the opposing r and then the v to that r. Instead, likely you would work on an r and v of another bifolio, the ones that follow the v of the first bifolio, continuing on like that until the center is reached, then the remaining blank pages are filled in order. Unless different people are working simultaneously, then perhaps they are each assigned a bifolio to copy, in which case the v,r, flip, v,r scenario would be more likely.
I agree the similarity of 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. could be due to being side by side when made. It just seems to me that like goes with like, so if there are plants on either side of these, and since there are many plant pages, that they would be all plant pages between these two non plant pages that are nevertheless attached to the plant pages. Being that there are few others if their ilk, i think of them as covers, just as i think of the scratches page on the rosettes as the cover. However there are other quires which go from one apparent segment to another, where the pages are clearly attached, so it could mark a change from one to the other.
Quire 17 contains a drawing with a vord in it that matches only one in f66v. It makes me wonder whether the 12 missing plants (if indeed it is all plants between) could be a couple of foldouts instead of 3 bifolios.
Sometimes i think maybe some missing pages aren't missing at all, and the page numbering anomalies are clues to the restitution of the original layout. Or maybe just evidence of mistakes? Like, let's say it is foldouts that are missing in quire 8, but they forgot to put them there and number them because they were already thereafter given new places in other quires by mistake, while the placeholder note had yet been left behind to make room for the 12 pages, likely because they were foldouts, and thus needed some extra attention upon binding. So, when the page numbering happened, they were counted twice; where they were supposed to go, and where they ended up. Maybe it was foldouts they had estimated page numbers for, and instead they had been looking for 3 bifolios. quires 15 and 17 both have trifolios, the former is clearly mismatched with a pharmaceutical foldout that would seem to me to better go with quire 19. The other is paired with a single bifolio that doesn't appear to be an outside piece. So i see possibilities...
I agree the similarity of 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. could be due to being side by side when made. It just seems to me that like goes with like, so if there are plants on either side of these, and since there are many plant pages, that they would be all plant pages between these two non plant pages that are nevertheless attached to the plant pages. Being that there are few others if their ilk, i think of them as covers, just as i think of the scratches page on the rosettes as the cover. However there are other quires which go from one apparent segment to another, where the pages are clearly attached, so it could mark a change from one to the other.
Quire 17 contains a drawing with a vord in it that matches only one in f66v. It makes me wonder whether the 12 missing plants (if indeed it is all plants between) could be a couple of foldouts instead of 3 bifolios.
Sometimes i think maybe some missing pages aren't missing at all, and the page numbering anomalies are clues to the restitution of the original layout. Or maybe just evidence of mistakes? Like, let's say it is foldouts that are missing in quire 8, but they forgot to put them there and number them because they were already thereafter given new places in other quires by mistake, while the placeholder note had yet been left behind to make room for the 12 pages, likely because they were foldouts, and thus needed some extra attention upon binding. So, when the page numbering happened, they were counted twice; where they were supposed to go, and where they ended up. Maybe it was foldouts they had estimated page numbers for, and instead they had been looking for 3 bifolios. quires 15 and 17 both have trifolios, the former is clearly mismatched with a pharmaceutical foldout that would seem to me to better go with quire 19. The other is paired with a single bifolio that doesn't appear to be an outside piece. So i see possibilities...