Why does heraldry fail?

[Sam G]

The method is simply that standard heraldic patterns can name more of the examples found in the VMs tub patterns than any other set of traditional  patterns. And this is the basis for further investigations based on heraldry, such as the possibility of historical identification.

Which other tub patterns are related to heraldry?  You have two matches - one pattern with scales and one with blue and white stripes, neither of which are exact representations.  They're merely "evocative" of standard heraldic patterns, as you put it.  The rest of the patterns seem to have nothing to do with heraldry no matter how much you stretch things, is that correct?  Or do you think the other tub patterns are also heraldic patterns, only we have not identified them yet?

In my view, armorial heraldry is limited to the patterned tubs which are only found on the first three VMs Zodiac pages. Ecclesiastical heraldry, red galeros, to designate the rank of cardinal, and white galeros, which identify the order of Premonstratensians, is limited to f71r.

Okay, so by your own admission the vast majority of the manuscript appears to have nothing to do with heraldry.

The 'pape-papelonny thing' is only one of several objective, positional confirmations of the Fieschi identification. It does seem to possess some additional significance, as it would be rather difficult to create such a pun accidentally. The purpose of this papal identification is to amplify the significance of these patterned markers found in the circular bands of text, with the view that these marked text segments would play an important (but as yet undetermined) role in making sense of the text overall.

First of all, we can already look at the markers and consider that it's likely that they serve some kind of purpose.  So your heraldic theory doesn't really help us much here - it just "amplifies the significance" of something we already know.  Second, I don't see any reason to assume that the markers are necessarily there to mark the text in those rings as particularly significant - they could serve any of a number of purposes.

I do not disagree that the image of the particular figure is much like you describe. My question is how can we have unqualified faith in the representation supplied by the VMs painter? The general suggestion is that the VMs painter is sloppy and does not know what's what. To create the given image, the VMs painter needs to know exactly what to do unprompted by any clues from the ink drawing. And the painter is using an atypical technique that requires a level of skill well beyond that of the ink outlines.

I would say that the ink drawing presents a figure that is probably male, while the painted addition presents an altered figure that is more problematic. However to label this figure as unquestionably female, fails to answer these questions. Why should it be, in this singular instance, that the sloppy VMs painter has suddenly attained the heights of technical precision? Why should it be, in this particular instance, that the uninformed VMs painter knows exactly what to do?

I see two clearly drawn breasts on this figure in the ink outlines themselves.  Not in the paints.  Again, if you don't see this then there's not much more we can say about the topic.