14-04-2024, 06:41 AM
So I assume that it was a book, so that I come to the same parchment with the same age. I will disregard the leaflets.
Since the pages must have been blank for the drawings and text to have been applied, this should be obvious. A cleaning of the parchment is visible.
General impression. Heavily used, worn.
Now you have to explain to me why a book should be worn if it was previously blank. Have so many people actually picked it up to realise that it is empty? Or is that a coincidence or part of the forgery?
Now it's getting to be too many coincidences, and for a forgery he's long overshot the mark.
Whether the parchment according to C-14 is from around 1400 or 1500 has nothing to do with a forgery from around 1900. The only issue here is the age of the source material.
How do you describe the general impression of the book?
Since the pages must have been blank for the drawings and text to have been applied, this should be obvious. A cleaning of the parchment is visible.
General impression. Heavily used, worn.
Now you have to explain to me why a book should be worn if it was previously blank. Have so many people actually picked it up to realise that it is empty? Or is that a coincidence or part of the forgery?
Now it's getting to be too many coincidences, and for a forgery he's long overshot the mark.
Whether the parchment according to C-14 is from around 1400 or 1500 has nothing to do with a forgery from around 1900. The only issue here is the age of the source material.
How do you describe the general impression of the book?