(09-03-2026, 04:16 PM)Koen G wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Andrew: alright, I understand you want to focus on certain types of evidence.
I don't think it should be called uncertain just because someone developed a fringe theory about it.
And which "fringe" theory are we now referring to? Presumably, given your preoccupation with it, you are referring to the Modern Forgery Theory of SantaColoma. Or are you referring to the separate Book Switch Theory? They are not the same thing.
I suppose you can call the Book Switch Theory a fringe one since it is primarily only myself and Jorge who have written anything about it. But, in any case, the questions around the "de Tepenec" signature and the evidence for or againts it stands independent of any of those theories -- it is merely part of the standard provenance story.
As for the Modern Forgery Theory, I don't happen to buy into all of its elements, but calling it a fringe theory comes across, again, as a weak attempt at dismissal. It still has considerable evidence in its favor. At this point, it iis really a question of which collection of evidence is stronger -- that supporting the MFT or that supporting a genuine 15th century origin along with its standard provenance story.
If you draw a card from a deck, you might well be safe in betting that it will NOT be a face card because that is indeed the most probable outcome. But suggesting that the outcome could be a face card is still justified and can't be called a fringe theory.