New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"

[Koen G]

I also mentioned those as part of a more general point. It would be nice if everytime someone comes across a manuscript or document that is not digitised and which they think is interesting they could add it to a list with a brief reason why they think it is interesting.

The problem is that it's very hard to know for sure whether a MS is interesting. Take my Willehalm research for example. This MS was not digitized when I wrote my blogpost, but now it is: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. 
Before, I had only one image from it, and at a glance I already noticed that the style was very different from the VM. Still, seeing the images of the embracing couple in there would have been interesting, but it doesn't add anything to our understanding. It's not even worth mailing the library about.

For me to know of a MS that might actually be worth the effort, I would need to know that it is the "missing link" I'm after. And that is very tricky. In practice, it turns out than none of the MSS I could have looked for are of much help. It's kind of like looking for a needle in a haystack, but you don't know if the needle is there. Getting to see more pieces of hay probably doesn't help much.

Of course, there can be instances where you have a very good idea of a single potentially interesting document. But in that case, I try to reach out to the library directly.