[split] Jorge's Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings

[Jorge_Stolfi]

The (I) case is similar.  The o with a detached plume must be very rare, if not unique.

This does not look like a plume, but like some dirt or stain on the vellum.

I concede that one.

[As for (D,B),] I can find a calculus textbook that would use a lot of Δ's and would en passant mention PDF's on one page and use a ∇. Obviously, it was retraced, right? Poor guy couldn't even copy a proper delta. I cannot "discern" the "good glyph" in this example. The reverse plume looks quite deliberate and properly executed.

Sigh.  Just say that you don't want to even entertain the possibility that one glyph may have been retraced by a later owner, and let's move on.

It is perfectly possible to ignore any details in the manuscript if needed without inventing a whole theory for this. Any detail could be explained by the whim of the author or a mistake of the artist, if there is a clear theory that bundles the rest together in a coherent way.

But you showed that you will not do that in this case.  "If it looks like a nabla, the Author must have meant a nabla"...

All the best, --stolfi