I really have no interest in this conversation. Manuscript images and specialist agree on a 1400-1430 date range being most likely. Pre-1400 is almost impossible, since the rare 1390's examples we have show a somewhat different intermediate style (as if the wide open sleeves have been tied with a band at the wrist). Besides, this would be in conflict with the carbon dating. Later than 1430 is possible, but less likely.
This thread reads to me like "let me see if I can find and twist things people once said so I can make it fit my preferred date range". You are cherry-picking what fits your narrative and ignoring everything else I said. When I said that they were trying to follow an example, I meant "for the material of the dress", not for the whole image. So to "shade" the dress, they tried to paint it like textiles are painted in other manuscripts, but they did not quite pull this off given the poor quality of the VM painting.
I do think they may have followed an example for the whole image (I think it is the most likely), but I am absolutely certain, and have often written, that this must pre-date Lauber. There is absolutely no way the VM images can have been copied from Lauber or any of the Gemini images I found. What makes this problem so interesting is that these images show later fashion styles, suggesting that an older model exists. This all fits within the Lauber context, because his workshop copied a lot of material (in order to be able to produce manuscripts more efficiently) and an older workshop existed in Haguenau. Lauber seems to have absorbed this earlier workshop and probably aquired their materials (I don't actually remember if this is what literally happened, or if this is even known, the earlier workshop is more enigmatic and it doesn't have a prominent figure's name attached to it).
My whole work has been an effort to carefully reconstruct the timeline and show that Lauber postdates the VM. (If I ever wrote anything to the contrary, this must have been a mistake). It's rather unpleasant to see my arguments misused in this way.
This thread reads to me like "let me see if I can find and twist things people once said so I can make it fit my preferred date range". You are cherry-picking what fits your narrative and ignoring everything else I said. When I said that they were trying to follow an example, I meant "for the material of the dress", not for the whole image. So to "shade" the dress, they tried to paint it like textiles are painted in other manuscripts, but they did not quite pull this off given the poor quality of the VM painting.
I do think they may have followed an example for the whole image (I think it is the most likely), but I am absolutely certain, and have often written, that this must pre-date Lauber. There is absolutely no way the VM images can have been copied from Lauber or any of the Gemini images I found. What makes this problem so interesting is that these images show later fashion styles, suggesting that an older model exists. This all fits within the Lauber context, because his workshop copied a lot of material (in order to be able to produce manuscripts more efficiently) and an older workshop existed in Haguenau. Lauber seems to have absorbed this earlier workshop and probably aquired their materials (I don't actually remember if this is what literally happened, or if this is even known, the earlier workshop is more enigmatic and it doesn't have a prominent figure's name attached to it).
My whole work has been an effort to carefully reconstruct the timeline and show that Lauber postdates the VM. (If I ever wrote anything to the contrary, this must have been a mistake). It's rather unpleasant to see my arguments misused in this way.