Hello Anton!
Indeed that is exactly what is being claimed, both in Nick Pelling's book, his original posts and in my discussion.
The evidence, shown by Nick Pelling, about the connecting tubs between 78v and 81r leaves little doubt that the binding we see in this quire is not the binding that there was originally.
The idea that quire 13 was originally two quires is apparently Glen Claston's.
I came to the same conclusion, as I explain in the page I linked, and further grouped and ordered the folios based on the reasons I have presented there.
For all these reasons, I strongly do believe that there were originally two quires in what is now Quire 13.
Indeed that is exactly what is being claimed, both in Nick Pelling's book, his original posts and in my discussion.
The evidence, shown by Nick Pelling, about the connecting tubs between 78v and 81r leaves little doubt that the binding we see in this quire is not the binding that there was originally.
The idea that quire 13 was originally two quires is apparently Glen Claston's.
I came to the same conclusion, as I explain in the page I linked, and further grouped and ordered the folios based on the reasons I have presented there.
For all these reasons, I strongly do believe that there were originally two quires in what is now Quire 13.