Three-section orbs

[asteckley]

My main point is that no dating information (of any useful accuracy) can be derived from this.
There is nothing to suggest that one was copied from the other, in either direction.

When I showed the diagram found by Ellie Velinska to a group of medievalists, they were unimpressed and said that this illustration is common.

I guess I will be able ignore the similarity as soon as someone produces another medieval drawing that has even a couple, if not all, of the identifying features.  (I think just a single ONE will likely suffice.) Without that evidence though, one can only assume that the group of medievalists were either not paying attention or just didn't know what they were talking about.  

I don't think that is unfair to say;  it would be far too easy to for them to substantiate their comment. And if one drawing is based on the other (and not on some third drawing that is only hypothesized to exist) then does have significant implications  -- it may not nail down a date, but it would still mean there is a direct intersection between the provenances of the two manuscripts. And it seems there is a lot more reliable information about the provenance of the French manuscript.  In fact, let's not forget that the only VMS provenance we have (pre-Wilfrid) hinges entirely on a couple of phrases (from dubious Latin translations)  that refer to similarities far less specific than those seen in these two drawings.

I do think the fact that both diagrams have ~43 "undulations" is more likely coincidental though. (If the specific number was a significant element for the meaning of some common motif, it would likely be drawn without ambiguity. And so too if the VMS artist was intending to copy the French drawing to that level of detail.  So the agreement in number seems more likely to be the fortuitous result of the scales involved.)