05-10-2025, 04:38 AM
Another batch of Retracing Hallucinations, now on page f67r2 (the one with red text).
Same premises and caveats as before. I see three layers on the brown ink text: original and retracing rounds Rt1.B, Rt2.B. The evidence is mainly ink density and plumes traced in the wrong direction, but there is one example where a glyph was mangled in a way suggesting that the Retracer did not know the alphabet.
There may be also two layers of red ink text, "original" and Rt1.R. The main evidence is some glyphs mangled beyond recognition, besides plumes traced in the wrong direction. The red ink has cracked an flaked off near the W and E edges of the panel. A faint brownish trace may or may not be visible in those places.
Clip of the NE part of the diagram of f67r2. Green, cyan, and blue labels indicate (re)tracing rounds for the brown ink, respectively original, Rt1.B, and Rt2.B. Orange and pink labels indicate (re)tracing of the red ink text, respectively original and Rt1.R. (A) Original glyphs (B) Rt1.B glyphs. (C,D) Rt2B glyphs. (E,G) Frame decorations in original traces (F,H) Frame decorations in Rt1.B. (I) Original trace of glyph h. (J) Probably a y that was retraced incorrectly as a disembodied tail. (K) glyphs n and r with badly Rt1.B retraced plumes. (L) possible brown ink or binder residue under red ink. (M) A brown ink dot in the middle of red text. (N,O) plumes of s and Sh in original red ink and Rt1.R. (Q,R) Glyph parts by Rt1.R. (S,T) Ligatures that start original red and end Rt1R. (U,V) glyphs that were mangled by Rt1.R. (W) In this k glyph, the part of the loop between the two legs is not aligned with the part to the right of the right leg. (X) loop of k traced in the wrong direction. (Y) Plume of r mangled by Rt1.R. (Z) Red ink cracked and flaked off near the edges of the panel.
Same premises and caveats as before. I see three layers on the brown ink text: original and retracing rounds Rt1.B, Rt2.B. The evidence is mainly ink density and plumes traced in the wrong direction, but there is one example where a glyph was mangled in a way suggesting that the Retracer did not know the alphabet.
There may be also two layers of red ink text, "original" and Rt1.R. The main evidence is some glyphs mangled beyond recognition, besides plumes traced in the wrong direction. The red ink has cracked an flaked off near the W and E edges of the panel. A faint brownish trace may or may not be visible in those places.
Clip of the NE part of the diagram of f67r2. Green, cyan, and blue labels indicate (re)tracing rounds for the brown ink, respectively original, Rt1.B, and Rt2.B. Orange and pink labels indicate (re)tracing of the red ink text, respectively original and Rt1.R. (A) Original glyphs (B) Rt1.B glyphs. (C,D) Rt2B glyphs. (E,G) Frame decorations in original traces (F,H) Frame decorations in Rt1.B. (I) Original trace of glyph h. (J) Probably a y that was retraced incorrectly as a disembodied tail. (K) glyphs n and r with badly Rt1.B retraced plumes. (L) possible brown ink or binder residue under red ink. (M) A brown ink dot in the middle of red text. (N,O) plumes of s and Sh in original red ink and Rt1.R. (Q,R) Glyph parts by Rt1.R. (S,T) Ligatures that start original red and end Rt1R. (U,V) glyphs that were mangled by Rt1.R. (W) In this k glyph, the part of the loop between the two legs is not aligned with the part to the right of the right leg. (X) loop of k traced in the wrong direction. (Y) Plume of r mangled by Rt1.R. (Z) Red ink cracked and flaked off near the edges of the panel.