02-11-2025, 04:39 AM
(02-11-2025, 01:01 AM)Bluetoes101 wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.- because watermarks are evidence used to determine age, geographic origins, and, sorry, authenticity
No, you inserted that unprompted to insert your ideas to the thread.
Well it may seem unprompted, but I do believe the discussion of the importance of watermark evidence often does relate to its ability to discover forgery. Not in all cases, but in some, and in this one. In some, because if the watermark is too late for the work, then obviously the work is fake. You can't put a new watermark in an old book.
But in this case, or in that one... in the watermark thread... it can relate to authenticity, even if the right age for the letter, because if no other use, by Marci, of that watermark is found, it is evidence that other paper was source for the 1665/66 letter. Proof, no. And if the watermark is found in Marci's papers, it is even stronger evidence in the other direction: Genuine.
And then, as you saw, Lisa objected with the "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", i.e., even if we NEVER find another Marci use of this same watermark, we can't say it did not exist somewhere, and maybe even used by the scribe that they say wrote the 1665/66 letter.
Anyway, the importance of finding/not finding lies somewhere along the scale of weak and strong evidence to genuine to forgery. But it is important evidence, and becomes all the more important the more Marci documents that are examined for the watermark. Note that I do not say "proof". Evidence is not of course, proof. So yes, I "inserted" my ideas about the possible value of the watermark as evidence toward forgery or genuine, but I disagree that it was "unprompted". The whole topic of watermarks did prompt me to point out the above value of watermarks... it is a real one, and often valuable for that purpose.
Quote:- As Lisa did, in using the "Absence of Evidence it not evidence of absence argument", which in this case was saying that even if a known Marci example was not found, the letter could still be real... yet, I would never even consider that Lisa's point be censored, or moved, for suggesting reasons the watermark find might always imply genuine.
This statement was made after your post. Yes, obviously.
Point taken... in my defense, the order of all this is swirling by now, and the thread is broken up and scattered anyway, so I lost the continuity of that discussion. I had wrongly thought the "Absence..." adage came first. But be that as it may, yes I did introduce the idea of the watermark possibly helping to determine forgery, or not... guilty as charged. What I disagree on is how much of any sort of "offense" that should be seen as, any more than someone noting the watermark was Italian, or three tassled hats. I think the moderator broke her own rules, and vastly over-reacted.
IMHO, as you know.
Quote:I don't have any compliant against you. I think some posts in here are condescending and rude to Tavie, that makes me a bit uncomfortable and I thought they were unneeded. While I don't find your theory obviously appealing to me I've been taking time to read it and will continue to.
Well thank you for taking the time to do that. I hope you find it interesting, and thought provoking, if not convincing to you. And if you have any questions about my theory, please fire away.
All the best, Rich