<![CDATA[The Voynich Ninja - Physical material]]>

<![CDATA[The Voynich Ninja - Physical material]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/ Thu, 22 Oct 2026 04:09:32 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[Quires 14 and 15 acquired as two large off-cuts?]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-6071.html Thu, 10 Sep 2026 10:48:10 +0000 Jorge_Stolfi]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-6071.html
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., that allow a sheet of one size to be cut or folded into two halves with the same aspect ratio. Specifically, each bifolio of the VMS is close to the ISO C4 size 324 by 229 mm, which is the size of an envelope suitable for a document in the common A4 paper format.

Quires 14 and 15, 17, and 19 consist of larger "non-regular" sheets. (Quires 16 and 18 are assumed to have been lost after the folios were numbered.)

Quire 14, the Rosettes fold-out, has a single sheet with two rows of three flaps. Four of the flaps are fairly rectangular with about the same width as a regular folio. (The top left flap, however, seems to have a curved top edge and to be a bit shorter vertically.) The two rightmost flaps have an irregular right edge and vary in width from ~130 to ~145 mm.

The inner "bifolio" of quire 15, f88+f89 has four flaps: two fairly rectangular ones with normal dimensions, then a slightly narrower one, ~145 mm wide, and a very narrow one with very irregular right edge, ~110 mm wide. (The latter is also ~5 mm shorter vertically.)

Another "bifolio" with four flaps is f99+f102, the outer "bifolio" of quire 19. Like the one above, it has two "regular" flaps, then one that is a bit narrower has only three flaps. The first two have "regular" shape and size; the third one is still fairly rectangular but a bit narrower, ~130 mm; and the fourth one has an irregular edge and is very narrow, from ~30 mm at the bottom to ~50 mm at the top. (The third flap is missing a triangular piece at the bottom corner adjacent to flap 2.)

It s proposed that the Author obtained the vellum of quires 14-19 as a set of six off-cuts whose height was twice that of a regular folio, ~460 mm, with two straight horizontal edges and one straight vertical edge, whose width varied irregularly between ~480 and ~640 mm, like the "B" and "C" red outlines below:

.jpg

  quires-14-19-offcuts.jpg (Size: 24.95 KB / Downloads: 114)

It is conjectured that the vellum maker or the merchant intended to cut the prepared skins into sheets of 640 by 460 mm (close to the ISO C2 paper), as per the blue outline above. A sheet of that size would have been a bifolio of a book twice as tall and wide as the VMS. Let's say that it would sell for 10 pazoozas.

However he would get many off-cuts like the red outlines above.  Presumably he would further cut any one with an "A" outline along the dashed vertical line to produce a "C3" sheet, suitable as a bifolio of a book 40% wider and taller as the VMS. Let's say that it would sell for 4 ₽.

On the other hand, an off-cut with "B" or "C" outline would be offered "as is" to any consumer who could use them. Its market price would be somewhere between 4 and 10 ₽ -- say, 6 ₽.

So the Author would have acquired a bunch of those "B" or "C" off-cuts. He used a whole "B" one, trimming the irregular edge, for the Rosettes diagram. He cut the others horizontally, using the "B" ones for "bifolios" with three "regular" flaps, like f87+f90, and the "C" ones for "bifolios" with three-and-a-half flaps, like f88+f89.

Makes sense?

All the best, --stolfi]]>
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., that allow a sheet of one size to be cut or folded into two halves with the same aspect ratio. Specifically, each bifolio of the VMS is close to the ISO C4 size 324 by 229 mm, which is the size of an envelope suitable for a document in the common A4 paper format.

Quires 14 and 15, 17, and 19 consist of larger "non-regular" sheets. (Quires 16 and 18 are assumed to have been lost after the folios were numbered.)

Quire 14, the Rosettes fold-out, has a single sheet with two rows of three flaps. Four of the flaps are fairly rectangular with about the same width as a regular folio. (The top left flap, however, seems to have a curved top edge and to be a bit shorter vertically.) The two rightmost flaps have an irregular right edge and vary in width from ~130 to ~145 mm.

The inner "bifolio" of quire 15, f88+f89 has four flaps: two fairly rectangular ones with normal dimensions, then a slightly narrower one, ~145 mm wide, and a very narrow one with very irregular right edge, ~110 mm wide. (The latter is also ~5 mm shorter vertically.)

Another "bifolio" with four flaps is f99+f102, the outer "bifolio" of quire 19. Like the one above, it has two "regular" flaps, then one that is a bit narrower has only three flaps. The first two have "regular" shape and size; the third one is still fairly rectangular but a bit narrower, ~130 mm; and the fourth one has an irregular edge and is very narrow, from ~30 mm at the bottom to ~50 mm at the top. (The third flap is missing a triangular piece at the bottom corner adjacent to flap 2.)

It s proposed that the Author obtained the vellum of quires 14-19 as a set of six off-cuts whose height was twice that of a regular folio, ~460 mm, with two straight horizontal edges and one straight vertical edge, whose width varied irregularly between ~480 and ~640 mm, like the "B" and "C" red outlines below:

.jpg

fold_shift.jpg (Size: 449.28 KB / Downloads: 187)

.jpg

fold_shift.jpg (Size: 449.28 KB / Downloads: 187)

.jpg

  fold_shift2.jpg (Size: 570.11 KB / Downloads: 184)

What this tells us is that the scribe planned for a fold, more or less on the location where a previous fold is still visible. But this fold did not become the preferential one, with both sheets becoming more folded inward.

I wonder what could be deduced from this, if anything, especially with misbinding and singulions in mind. Is the current preferential fold required to fit the foldout into the codex? Maybe someone misfolded the flap before storing the MS for a long time? Although then it would be a coincidence that both foldouts show a similar shift.]]> <![CDATA[Assumptions baked into the VMS carbon dating]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-6036.html Thu, 27 Aug 2026 18:02:43 +0000 eggyk]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-6036.html
I wanted to raise some potential issues that I've had with the carbon dating of the VMS. Before I start, I want to make abundantly clear that I accept the dating for the individual leaves of parchment as reported, and that this is NOT an "anti carbon dating" post in any way.

I believe that some of the core assumptions used to come to the final dating range do not necessarily hold up to scrutiny. Before I do so, I want to make clear the following things that I have no issue with:

- I see no issue in the handling or testing process for any of the individual samples
- I do not disagee with any of the individual dating results for any of the samples
- I believe that the results were correctly calculated after the core assumptions were applied (I ran the numbers myself as well and got pretty much the same range)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With that out of the way, let me explain what I mean. My issues stem from the combination of the invidual dating results into a smaller range using a statistical process. As I mentioned above, I believe that this statistical process was done entirely correctly after the core assumptions were applied. But, what were those assumptions that justified doing so?

1) The individual leaves of parchment are part of a singular "whole" object, and thus can all be assumed to be samples from that same "object"

What is the justification for that to be assumed as correct? As far as I can tell, the main reason to accept this is that the entire VMS contains "voynichese". That's pretty much it. As i've frequently come across while looking through manuscripts, it is common for there to be a seemingly random inserted page, sometimes far older, sometimes far younger within the binding. And often the only discernable way to know that it is dated differently is the content: perhaps the handwriting is different, or the language is different. We have no such luxury with the voynich manuscript, as we cannot understand the content.

Okay, but isn't this part of the reason why samples were taken from different sections? Yes, but there are FAR too few samples to conclusively say that there are no outlier leaves. If the manuscript was indeed previously loose sheets in a different order, it's completely possible that there are some older or younger leaves scattered within the sections. For instance, say that someone began writing the VMS in 1380AD, and completed around 4 pages, but never finished the rest or died. Then, a student or family member continued the work in the same style, with the same writing rules, later in 1420AD. When the book was rebound later, those 4 pages would not have stood out from the rest, and would now be inserted at random within a section.

So seperately, it is possible that if we were to take 4 more samples from 4 other leaves, we may happen to get completely different results. That is the nature of seperate pieces of parchment, and more importantly that is the nature of those sheets NOT being a single object. Let me present this another way: if 20% of ALL folios were truly from 1350AD, and 80% were from 1420AD, the chance to pick 4 samples from 1420 at random is around 40%.

2) The VMS was written and produced in a short period of time

I don't understand the evidence for this. How can we possibly know?

As I mentioned above, there are countless instances of composite manuscripts containing works from different time periods. Quite often, there is no real discernable difference between the quality of the parchment - it is only the content that changes. Sometimes, I come across examples where the text was written at a certain time, and the illumination didn't take place until decades later. Take this example, where the text was written in 1425-1450AD (or maybe slightly earlier), but the illuminations date later, with some dating to around the last quarter of the 15th century: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

If you were to take 4 samples from that manuscript, how many would come back saying 1490AD?

The biggest issue with this assumption is that it effectively stifles research into anything post 1450AD, when it is entirely possible that sections of the VMS were written after 1450AD. We can point at certain aspects that potentially date the VMS, such as the clothing, or the zodiac signs, or the swallowtail merlons. Okay, but that dates those pages, not the entire VMS. It actually doesn't date those pages with certainty either; there are plenty of examples of almost 1-1 copies of illustrations over decades.

Seperately, this assumption itself implies something: that the works in the VMS must date to the same time period as the parchment. This, I believe for obvious reasons, is not a reasonable standpoint. What is to say the VMS author was not sourcing from an italian manuscript from 1320AD, and seperately sourcing another french manuscript from 1410, and then also sourcing a german manuscript from 1250AD? Sourcing works from 1250AD sounds unlikely, but to do so in 1430AD would be almost exactly like us sourcing from Charles Dicken's Great Expectations, from 1860. Not farfetched in the slightest.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 14th century f68 peak

A seperate issue that comes forth after doing this statistical process is the dismissal of the huge early-mid 14th century peak in the f68 result. This is effectively brushed aside by aggregating the results of the different pieces of parchment. Is this proper? It seems entirely improper to state that a single piece of parchment has a 42% chance of being dated to 1308-1362, but then to take 3 other seperate samples, state that they are the same object as f68 (when they are not), and then say there's a 95% chance that the whole thing dates to 1404-1435.

This is basically saying "yeah, theres that huge peak there, but these other pages dont have the peak, so its probably worth ignoring". Why can't one page genuinely date to 1330, and another genuinely date to 1420?

Again, if we had chosen 4 other pieces of parchment, and each had the same ~50-50 peak distribution as in f68, there would have to be a huge discussion on which peak was more likely. But because we only found one, we dismiss it entirely. It's not right.

If the reality is genuinely that some pages date to ~1330, and others date to ~1420 (coincidentally at the same levels of atmospheric carbon), we would expect to see peaks in both for both sets of pages.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

Basically, this is what I am making the thread to state:

- The dating range of 1404-1435AD is based on what I believe are potentially incorrect assumptions.
- Based on the results, we should probably have a likely working date-range of ~1385-1458AD
- More carbon testing could potentially find more pages similar to f68, with a large peak in the mid 14th century
- To say that the VMS was written in a short period of time, or saying that the VMS is dated fom 1404-1435, even if true, puts unneccesary restrictions on various aspects of research.
- We should be treating works from the 9th-15th century as possible direct inspirations for the content in the VMS, instead of broadly dismissing most as probably not relevant.
- We should not presume that the content cannot have been post-1435AD

I know that making this thread will probably not win me any favours, and i've been sitting on it for a while now debating whether to post. But if anything comes across as an attack on other researchers and their work, please do not take it that way. I don't mean for that to be the case at all, and I have huge respect to those that have done that work.]]>
I wanted to raise some potential issues that I've had with the carbon dating of the VMS. Before I start, I want to make abundantly clear that I accept the dating for the individual leaves of parchment as reported, and that this is NOT an "anti carbon dating" post in any way.

I believe that some of the core assumptions used to come to the final dating range do not necessarily hold up to scrutiny. Before I do so, I want to make clear the following things that I have no issue with:

- I see no issue in the handling or testing process for any of the individual samples
- I do not disagee with any of the individual dating results for any of the samples
- I believe that the results were correctly calculated after the core assumptions were applied (I ran the numbers myself as well and got pretty much the same range)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With that out of the way, let me explain what I mean. My issues stem from the combination of the invidual dating results into a smaller range using a statistical process. As I mentioned above, I believe that this statistical process was done entirely correctly after the core assumptions were applied. But, what were those assumptions that justified doing so?

1) The individual leaves of parchment are part of a singular "whole" object, and thus can all be assumed to be samples from that same "object"

What is the justification for that to be assumed as correct? As far as I can tell, the main reason to accept this is that the entire VMS contains "voynichese". That's pretty much it. As i've frequently come across while looking through manuscripts, it is common for there to be a seemingly random inserted page, sometimes far older, sometimes far younger within the binding. And often the only discernable way to know that it is dated differently is the content: perhaps the handwriting is different, or the language is different. We have no such luxury with the voynich manuscript, as we cannot understand the content.

Okay, but isn't this part of the reason why samples were taken from different sections? Yes, but there are FAR too few samples to conclusively say that there are no outlier leaves. If the manuscript was indeed previously loose sheets in a different order, it's completely possible that there are some older or younger leaves scattered within the sections. For instance, say that someone began writing the VMS in 1380AD, and completed around 4 pages, but never finished the rest or died. Then, a student or family member continued the work in the same style, with the same writing rules, later in 1420AD. When the book was rebound later, those 4 pages would not have stood out from the rest, and would now be inserted at random within a section.

So seperately, it is possible that if we were to take 4 more samples from 4 other leaves, we may happen to get completely different results. That is the nature of seperate pieces of parchment, and more importantly that is the nature of those sheets NOT being a single object. Let me present this another way: if 20% of ALL folios were truly from 1350AD, and 80% were from 1420AD, the chance to pick 4 samples from 1420 at random is around 40%.

2) The VMS was written and produced in a short period of time

I don't understand the evidence for this. How can we possibly know?

As I mentioned above, there are countless instances of composite manuscripts containing works from different time periods. Quite often, there is no real discernable difference between the quality of the parchment - it is only the content that changes. Sometimes, I come across examples where the text was written at a certain time, and the illumination didn't take place until decades later. Take this example, where the text was written in 1425-1450AD (or maybe slightly earlier), but the illuminations date later, with some dating to around the last quarter of the 15th century: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

If you were to take 4 samples from that manuscript, how many would come back saying 1490AD?

The biggest issue with this assumption is that it effectively stifles research into anything post 1450AD, when it is entirely possible that sections of the VMS were written after 1450AD. We can point at certain aspects that potentially date the VMS, such as the clothing, or the zodiac signs, or the swallowtail merlons. Okay, but that dates those pages, not the entire VMS. It actually doesn't date those pages with certainty either; there are plenty of examples of almost 1-1 copies of illustrations over decades.

Seperately, this assumption itself implies something: that the works in the VMS must date to the same time period as the parchment. This, I believe for obvious reasons, is not a reasonable standpoint. What is to say the VMS author was not sourcing from an italian manuscript from 1320AD, and seperately sourcing another french manuscript from 1410, and then also sourcing a german manuscript from 1250AD? Sourcing works from 1250AD sounds unlikely, but to do so in 1430AD would be almost exactly like us sourcing from Charles Dicken's Great Expectations, from 1860. Not farfetched in the slightest.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 14th century f68 peak

A seperate issue that comes forth after doing this statistical process is the dismissal of the huge early-mid 14th century peak in the f68 result. This is effectively brushed aside by aggregating the results of the different pieces of parchment. Is this proper? It seems entirely improper to state that a single piece of parchment has a 42% chance of being dated to 1308-1362, but then to take 3 other seperate samples, state that they are the same object as f68 (when they are not), and then say there's a 95% chance that the whole thing dates to 1404-1435.

This is basically saying "yeah, theres that huge peak there, but these other pages dont have the peak, so its probably worth ignoring". Why can't one page genuinely date to 1330, and another genuinely date to 1420?

Again, if we had chosen 4 other pieces of parchment, and each had the same ~50-50 peak distribution as in f68, there would have to be a huge discussion on which peak was more likely. But because we only found one, we dismiss it entirely. It's not right.

If the reality is genuinely that some pages date to ~1330, and others date to ~1420 (coincidentally at the same levels of atmospheric carbon), we would expect to see peaks in both for both sets of pages.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

Basically, this is what I am making the thread to state:

- The dating range of 1404-1435AD is based on what I believe are potentially incorrect assumptions.
- Based on the results, we should probably have a likely working date-range of ~1385-1458AD
- More carbon testing could potentially find more pages similar to f68, with a large peak in the mid 14th century
- To say that the VMS was written in a short period of time, or saying that the VMS is dated fom 1404-1435, even if true, puts unneccesary restrictions on various aspects of research.
- We should be treating works from the 9th-15th century as possible direct inspirations for the content in the VMS, instead of broadly dismissing most as probably not relevant.
- We should not presume that the content cannot have been post-1435AD

I know that making this thread will probably not win me any favours, and i've been sitting on it for a while now debating whether to post. But if anything comes across as an attack on other researchers and their work, please do not take it that way. I don't mean for that to be the case at all, and I have huge respect to those that have done that work.]]> <![CDATA[Could a chemist reproduce inks of medieval quality, then apply them to vellum?]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5925.html Thu, 16 Jul 2026 01:31:30 +0000 conlangyalesbaby]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5925.html
Could a chemist reproduce the medieval inks and then lay the text down on 15th century vellum? How hard would that be to do and is it possible. Someone mentioned that the Iron Gall might be tomato paste. I have come across some forgery ideas about Wilfrid. Of course if the author of the MS-408 was a forger he would add provenance material as well.

Just because a document follows zipfs law that does not preclude it from behaving like near gibberish. It may contain some words, but might mostly be something that the mind may only comprehend if it had the inside scoop and the construction may have favored prefixes and suffix's. Is there any talk about a 1912 binding and why would that be?]]>
Could a chemist reproduce the medieval inks and then lay the text down on 15th century vellum? How hard would that be to do and is it possible. Someone mentioned that the Iron Gall might be tomato paste. I have come across some forgery ideas about Wilfrid. Of course if the author of the MS-408 was a forger he would add provenance material as well.

Just because a document follows zipfs law that does not preclude it from behaving like near gibberish. It may contain some words, but might mostly be something that the mind may only comprehend if it had the inside scoop and the construction may have favored prefixes and suffix's. Is there any talk about a 1912 binding and why would that be?]]> <![CDATA[f14v f14r - contemporary damage?]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5849.html Tue, 23 Jun 2026 05:52:20 +0000 mykiavellian]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5849.html
I was looking at f14v/r and I noticed the unusual page shape. I do understand that the vellum is extremely precious material and even the highest quality manuscripts would not necessarily dispose of a damaged/misshapen piece.

However, it got me interested in contemporary versus non-contemporary damage in the manuscript. In this case, it looks to me like the scribe on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. left the exact space needed in the margin to avoid the cut-out, but then again, the hole is ragged and there's damage overlaying a leaf in f14v.

Is this an example of contemporary (ie, to the time of the creation of quire 2) damage/natural page shape, which has degraded faster than the other edges because of relative thinness? Or is the damage that was inflicted sometime in-between? Is there an existing consensus?

Also, I tried looking this up but it's almost a certainty with this manuscript that my question has already been exhausted answered, so if there is an existing google doc with a full list of damage to the manuscript etc., please point me to it!]]>
I was looking at f14v/r and I noticed the unusual page shape. I do understand that the vellum is extremely precious material and even the highest quality manuscripts would not necessarily dispose of a damaged/misshapen piece.

However, it got me interested in contemporary versus non-contemporary damage in the manuscript. In this case, it looks to me like the scribe on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. left the exact space needed in the margin to avoid the cut-out, but then again, the hole is ragged and there's damage overlaying a leaf in f14v.

Is this an example of contemporary (ie, to the time of the creation of quire 2) damage/natural page shape, which has degraded faster than the other edges because of relative thinness? Or is the damage that was inflicted sometime in-between? Is there an existing consensus?

Also, I tried looking this up but it's almost a certainty with this manuscript that my question has already been exhausted answered, so if there is an existing google doc with a full list of damage to the manuscript etc., please point me to it!]]> <![CDATA[The VMS ink is NOT iron-gall]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5667.html Thu, 23 Apr 2026 14:53:58 +0000 Jorge_Stolfi]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5667.html
But that is not correct. The instruments described in the report cannot positively identify iron-gall ink (IGI). The X-ray diffraction spectrum can identify particles of crystalline mineral pigments, like azurite, minium, hematite. For substances that are not crystalline -- which is the case of IGI -- they can only tell which chemical elements they contain, but not the substances -- how those elements are combined.

Those instruments only determined that the ink contains iron. It was natural to conclude that it was IGI, because 99.99% of the iron-containing dark ink on vellum documents and manuscripts is IGI, and it does not make sense to write on vellum with any other black ink. People would use vellum when they wanted the document or book to last for centuries, and resist rubbing, humidity, spills; and to make the text relatively tamper-proof. Only IGI would achieve that goal.

But, unfortunately, the VMS is not a "99.99% manuscript". It is a "0.01%" one. And that has led too many experts astray...

In particular the VMS text ink is definitely not IGI.

For one thing, unlike IGI, the VMS ink will come off easily and completely with water. That is clearly visible on the ultraviolet images of f116v, or inside the "ketchup" stain of f103r. In fact it seems to come off even just by rubbing.

But the real evidence is how it looks under infrared. According to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.:

Quote:According to recent reflectance measurements, iron gall inks absorb IR radiation up to 1200 nm [23] (p. 58) (Additional file 1: Suppl 2),Footnote3 while ochre already become transparent at 850 nm [25] (p. 16). An iron gall ink underdrawing could be thus determined, if the underdrawing lines absorb radiation up to 1200 nm and become invisible in higher wavelengths

And here are clips from the infrared images of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. under light of various wavelengths:

650 nm (red):

.jpg

f17r-MB625RD_006_F-C4.jpg (Size: 296.9 KB / Downloads: 307)

700 nm (infrared):

.jpg

f17r-MB700IR_008_F-C4.jpg (Size: 266.69 KB / Downloads: 308)

940 nm (infrared):

.jpg

  f17r-MB940IR_012_F-C4.jpg (Size: 224.18 KB / Downloads: 306)

Thus the text ink on that page becomes transparent and invisible between 700 and 940 nm. It is not IGI, but probably some iron-containing brown mineral pigment like sienna.

The report itself admits that the quire numbers (Sample 19) did not show significant iron contents. Which is not strange: quire numbers, unlike the folio numbers, were only temporary instructions to the bookbinder; and thus were probably made with some other ink, like lampblack (india) ink -- with is much easier to make than IGI, lasts indefinitely in a closed bottle, and is better than IGI for writing on paper.

Another common mis-interpretation of that report is the claim that they determined that all inks and pigments were original from the 1400s.

First, as the report admits, they failed to identify many of the pigments, including the text ink and the green paint that is used on the leaves of most of the plants. (They only determined that it contained copper but was not crystalline, and guessed that it could be some unidentified organic salt of copper.) And they mis-identified others, like a red pigment as "palmierite" (which is an extremely rare colorless mineral, found only around fumaroles in volcanic areas.)

And, for those paints that they did identify, they did not not determine any dates.

All they found is that the pigments that they did identify, like azurite (but not that "palmierite") were available and used in the 1400s. That is, none of the pigments that they could identify was a synthetic pigment that became available only after 1700 (like the titanium white that debunked the Vinland Map).

But all those pigments that they did identify are still available today, and would have been used by a painter or forger at any time before 1911...

All the best, --stolfi]]>
But that is not correct. The instruments described in the report cannot positively identify iron-gall ink (IGI). The X-ray diffraction spectrum can identify particles of crystalline mineral pigments, like azurite, minium, hematite. For substances that are not crystalline -- which is the case of IGI -- they can only tell which chemical elements they contain, but not the substances -- how those elements are combined.

Those instruments only determined that the ink contains iron. It was natural to conclude that it was IGI, because 99.99% of the iron-containing dark ink on vellum documents and manuscripts is IGI, and it does not make sense to write on vellum with any other black ink. People would use vellum when they wanted the document or book to last for centuries, and resist rubbing, humidity, spills; and to make the text relatively tamper-proof. Only IGI would achieve that goal.

But, unfortunately, the VMS is not a "99.99% manuscript". It is a "0.01%" one. And that has led too many experts astray...

In particular the VMS text ink is definitely not IGI.

For one thing, unlike IGI, the VMS ink will come off easily and completely with water. That is clearly visible on the ultraviolet images of f116v, or inside the "ketchup" stain of f103r. In fact it seems to come off even just by rubbing.

But the real evidence is how it looks under infrared. According to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.:

Quote:According to recent reflectance measurements, iron gall inks absorb IR radiation up to 1200 nm [23] (p. 58) (Additional file 1: Suppl 2),Footnote3 while ochre already become transparent at 850 nm [25] (p. 16). An iron gall ink underdrawing could be thus determined, if the underdrawing lines absorb radiation up to 1200 nm and become invisible in higher wavelengths

And here are clips from the infrared images of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. under light of various wavelengths:

650 nm (red):

.jpg

f17r-MB625RD_006_F-C4.jpg (Size: 296.9 KB / Downloads: 307)

700 nm (infrared):

.jpg

f17r-MB700IR_008_F-C4.jpg (Size: 266.69 KB / Downloads: 308)

940 nm (infrared):

.jpg

  f17r-MB940IR_012_F-C4.jpg (Size: 224.18 KB / Downloads: 306)

Thus the text ink on that page becomes transparent and invisible between 700 and 940 nm. It is not IGI, but probably some iron-containing brown mineral pigment like sienna.

The report itself admits that the quire numbers (Sample 19) did not show significant iron contents. Which is not strange: quire numbers, unlike the folio numbers, were only temporary instructions to the bookbinder; and thus were probably made with some other ink, like lampblack (india) ink -- with is much easier to make than IGI, lasts indefinitely in a closed bottle, and is better than IGI for writing on paper.

Another common mis-interpretation of that report is the claim that they determined that all inks and pigments were original from the 1400s.

First, as the report admits, they failed to identify many of the pigments, including the text ink and the green paint that is used on the leaves of most of the plants. (They only determined that it contained copper but was not crystalline, and guessed that it could be some unidentified organic salt of copper.) And they mis-identified others, like a red pigment as "palmierite" (which is an extremely rare colorless mineral, found only around fumaroles in volcanic areas.)

And, for those paints that they did identify, they did not not determine any dates.

All they found is that the pigments that they did identify, like azurite (but not that "palmierite") were available and used in the 1400s. That is, none of the pigments that they could identify was a synthetic pigment that became available only after 1700 (like the titanium white that debunked the Vinland Map).

But all those pigments that they did identify are still available today, and would have been used by a painter or forger at any time before 1911...

All the best, --stolfi]]> <![CDATA[100 sheets of stolen vellum]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5620.html Fri, 17 Apr 2026 06:43:16 +0000 JustAnotherTheory]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5620.html
One way to do so could be to take the vellum from a scriptorium using theft, and then write the MS in a "safe place". After all, iron gall ink was not difficult to make "at home", so all that was needed for writing the manuscript DYI-style was a lot of vellum.

So I wonder, how easy would it be to steal 100 sheets of vellum from a scriptorium, and whether such a theft would go unnoticed (are 100 sheets "a lot" or "a little" in the scope of a professional workshop)? Would such a theft be recorded in the inventory of a scriptorium?]]>
One way to do so could be to take the vellum from a scriptorium using theft, and then write the MS in a "safe place". After all, iron gall ink was not difficult to make "at home", so all that was needed for writing the manuscript DYI-style was a lot of vellum.

So I wonder, how easy would it be to steal 100 sheets of vellum from a scriptorium, and whether such a theft would go unnoticed (are 100 sheets "a lot" or "a little" in the scope of a professional workshop)? Would such a theft be recorded in the inventory of a scriptorium?]]> <![CDATA[Trying to identify the ink binder...]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5451.html Sun, 15 Mar 2026 10:41:20 +0000 kckluge]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5451.html

.png

JBarabeZoomTalk_InkVsGumArabic.png (Size: 67.44 KB / Downloads: 183)

Beyond saying, "Infrared spectroscopy identified the binding medium of the writing and drawing inks as a gum; see the reference spectrum for gum Arabic (Figure 1D). The spectra include several sharp peaks in the region 1100-1000 cm-1 that are not expected for a gum as per the spectra in our library. This suggests the possibility of other constituents, which remain unidentified as of this date. Most recipes for iron gall inks include gum, usually gum Arabic, as an ingredient." the report doesn't attempt to further identify which gum was used.

A number of sources including the physical findings essay in the Yale facsimile volume identify cherry gum as a substitute used for gum arabic in iron gall inks. Comparing the cherry gum FTIR spectum from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. with the spectrum from Sample 16 (drawing black ink) in the McCrone report, my (openly admittedly untrained) impression is that it looks like a credible candidate:

.jpg

FTIR_TextInkSample16VsCherryGum.jpg (Size: 90.69 KB / Downloads: 175)

Anyone interested in crowdsourcing trying to identify other candidates?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. may be of some help in narrowing down candidates.]]> <![CDATA[Bleedthrough/marks on f96v]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5354.html Thu, 12 Feb 2026 10:10:16 +0000 eggyk]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5354.html
I've been going through pages and doing some image processing on them to check if there's any unusual bleedthrough of ink/paint anywhere.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. / You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. are obviously an interesting pair of pages, given the missing pages between them. I decided to check the bleedthrough and compare to f96r (the back of f96v) to see any differences.

.png

image_2026-02-12_110757296.png (Size: 563.61 KB / Downloads: 155)
.png

image_2026-02-12_110813868.png (Size: 524.4 KB / Downloads: 161)

So far so good, the text, leaves, roots and flower all match as expected. There are, however, marks that do not align with f96r. These marks are visible on f96v, but are not from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and have not bled through to f96r. Here are a couple:

.png

image_2026-02-12_110831907.png (Size: 420.02 KB / Downloads: 162)
.png

image_2026-02-12_110844073.png (Size: 181.79 KB / Downloads: 160)

Due to this, I checked whether the marks lined up with f99r, to see whether the paint has marked the page. I think some of these may match, but i'm not sure. The containers are the best evidence of this I think; the areas with less marking seeming to roughly correspond to the unpainted areas of the containers. Two of the leaves and the small green berries somewhat line up with some other marks as well.

.png

image_2026-02-12_110900463.png (Size: 780.44 KB / Downloads: 165)

Firstly, I need people to tell me whether this is pareidolia Tongue

If this does match, does it have any implications for the the timing of the removal of f97-98?

Additionally, could it be possible -through theoretical MSI passes in the future or further work- to seperate which marks are bleedthrough, which are from f99r, which are from water damage or spillage, and potential remainders of marks from the missing page?]]>
I've been going through pages and doing some image processing on them to check if there's any unusual bleedthrough of ink/paint anywhere.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. / You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. are obviously an interesting pair of pages, given the missing pages between them. I decided to check the bleedthrough and compare to f96r (the back of f96v) to see any differences.

.png

image_2026-02-12_110757296.png (Size: 563.61 KB / Downloads: 155)
.png

image_2026-02-12_110831907.png (Size: 420.02 KB / Downloads: 162)
.png

image_2026-02-12_110900463.png (Size: 780.44 KB / Downloads: 165)

Firstly, I need people to tell me whether this is pareidolia Tongue

x.png (Size: 181.19 KB / Downloads: 288)

It seems to me that it is not a single page case but it rather occured on many (if not all) pages.

There is probably some old discussion about it Wink

but I am curious to hear current views.

- do you agree that it was trimmed at the bottom?
- when could it happen?
- why was it done?

For me it seems that:
- it was cut before binding as quire numbers aren't cut and are aligned to the new bottom
- it was done in a very rough way, the edges are "wavy" and irregular like it was done by some drunken butcher in one swift move of his butcher knife Wink

- I have no idea why it was done
- I also don't know if such things were commonly done to other manuscripts

Any opinions?]]>
.png

x.png (Size: 181.19 KB / Downloads: 288)

It seems to me that it is not a single page case but it rather occured on many (if not all) pages.

There is probably some old discussion about it Wink

- I have no idea why it was done
- I also don't know if such things were commonly done to other manuscripts

Any opinions?]]> <![CDATA[ORIGINAL stains on the vellum]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5277.html Mon, 19 Jan 2026 18:51:37 +0000 Jorge_Stolfi]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5277.html Register or Login to view. (Bio) I noticed this detail:

.jpg

f77v-stain-lines-37-38.jpg (Size: 31.29 KB / Downloads: 174)
It would seem that the Scribe squeezed the word Cheey upwards in order to avoid the orangeish stain below it.

If so, it shows that all cows in Scotland are black some of the stains were on the vellum before the Scribe did his job. Which would be another reason for the VMS vellum to be second-grade, if not a "factory reject".

All the best, --stolfi]]> <![CDATA[Question about Binding]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5194.html Wed, 31 Dec 2025 17:19:02 +0000 ben._corley]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5194.html Register or Login to view.). She presented some evidence that the MS was originally meant to to be a collection of singlians, kinda like a pamphlet today if I understand correctly, instead of bound as a book. She explained it much clearer and accurate than I have here, so I recommend you watch.

This prompted a question for me: was the intention to have the MS bound despite its singlian nature? This, of course, prompts several follow-up questions.
1) Would a 15th century scribe be aware/knowledgable about binding practices?
2) Would a typical MS be bound before being authored or authored then bound?
3) What does the handwriting/paleography of the script suggest about the authors' experience and knowledge of writing?
4) If the authors were not experienced, could they have written the MS as singlians still intending for them to be bound?

I do not have any answers for these, just some questions I was left with after watching. I would love to hear what you guys have to think about this!]]> Register or Login to view.). She presented some evidence that the MS was originally meant to to be a collection of singlians, kinda like a pamphlet today if I understand correctly, instead of bound as a book. She explained it much clearer and accurate than I have here, so I recommend you watch.

This prompted a question for me: was the intention to have the MS bound despite its singlian nature? This, of course, prompts several follow-up questions.
1) Would a 15th century scribe be aware/knowledgable about binding practices?
2) Would a typical MS be bound before being authored or authored then bound?
3) What does the handwriting/paleography of the script suggest about the authors' experience and knowledge of writing?
4) If the authors were not experienced, could they have written the MS as singlians still intending for them to be bound?

I do not have any answers for these, just some questions I was left with after watching. I would love to hear what you guys have to think about this!]]> <![CDATA[Statistical Codicology]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5168.html Tue, 23 Dec 2025 07:52:41 +0000 DG97EEB]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5168.html
I watched LFD's video on quire reordering. Has anyone run any statistical analysis to see if it can be inferred from content alone? For example do certain folios contain more similar vocabulary than others? I think I remember reading somewhere that folios 42, 49, and 56 all share a lot of vocabulary with each other (way more than typical herbal folios do), suggesting they came from the same production batch, even though they're now in different quires.

Thanks]]>
I watched LFD's video on quire reordering. Has anyone run any statistical analysis to see if it can be inferred from content alone? For example do certain folios contain more similar vocabulary than others? I think I remember reading somewhere that folios 42, 49, and 56 all share a lot of vocabulary with each other (way more than typical herbal folios do), suggesting they came from the same production batch, even though they're now in different quires.

Thanks]]> <![CDATA[Quire 13. Text first. Pictures after.]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5134.html Sun, 14 Dec 2025 13:31:13 +0000 dashstofsk]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5134.html

f79r and f79v. The text margin is straight and does not flow around the contours of the pictures.

f81r. Space had been left on the right of the page for drawings that were never made. There wasn't enough space at the top to fully draw the bath tub thing that was intended. The bath tub at the bottom has also not been completed. Perhaps the writer just got annoyed with himself and abandoned this page.

f84v. The text on the right does not align with the bulk of the text. If text came last then it would have aligned. So it looks like that text was added after the drawings were done, and these drawings after the main text was done.

f75r. If drawings came first then it is unlikely the first drawing would have been done slanty.

f82v and other pages. The drawings on the right hand sides were done cramped. Had they been done first they would have commanded more space and the writing would have stopped short.

]]>

f79r and f79v. The text margin is straight and does not flow around the contours of the pictures.

f81r. Space had been left on the right of the page for drawings that were never made. There wasn't enough space at the top to fully draw the bath tub thing that was intended. The bath tub at the bottom has also not been completed. Perhaps the writer just got annoyed with himself and abandoned this page.

f84v. The text on the right does not align with the bulk of the text. If text came last then it would have aligned. So it looks like that text was added after the drawings were done, and these drawings after the main text was done.

f75r. If drawings came first then it is unlikely the first drawing would have been done slanty.

f82v and other pages. The drawings on the right hand sides were done cramped. Had they been done first they would have commanded more space and the writing would have stopped short.

]]> <![CDATA[About the binding(s?) and missing folios]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5122.html Wed, 10 Dec 2025 15:48:44 +0000 Cuagga]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5122.html
Reading Rene Zandbergen's blog, a few things jumped to my mind. In You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., he retraces the most probable evolution of the manuscript in these terms :

Quote:The points that have been presented in relation to the order of production of the MS may now be summarised.

The MS was produced in a bifolio-per-bifolio manner, with the drawing outlines inked first, followed by the inking of the text;

The quire numbers were added before the folio numbers;

The page order has been disturbed, and this happened before both sets of numbers were added;

The painting was done before the present binding;

The quire and folio numbers were added before the present binding;

Some of the painting appears to have been done after the folio numbers were added;

Twelve of the fourteen missing folios were lost after the folio numbers were added, but before the present binding.

This leads to the following tentative reconstruction:
All bifolios of the MS were prepared: the drawing outlines and the text were added in ink;

Sometime after this, the planned order of the bifolios was disturbed. The bifolios were stacked anew in an incorrect order (implying that the person who did this was not the original author) but the set was still complete. (The interesting task of identifying the original page order has not been completed, and has mainly been driven by Nick Pelling);

The quires were numbered first, the MS may have been bound, and the folios were numbered after that. (This initial binding is not necessary but would explain the inconsistency of the quire and folio numbers of quire 9);

At this point, the book had all folios including the now missing ones, and was not painted, or only partially painted. Folio 42 would not have been painted yet;

The MS was disassembled and painted (or the partial painting completed). Six bifolios were lost or removed at this point;

Shortly after the painting, the MS was rebound in the same order, but with the six bifolios missing. Folios 12 and 74 would have still been there. Especially the blue paint transferred on opposite pages;

Folios 12 and 74 were cut out sometime later

We know that the quire numbers were added before the folio numbers, and that this indicates the presence of a first binding, or at least that the manuscript was prepared for binding (the same page mentions earlier that the marks on q9 only show a preparation for binding but no trace of finishing it at this point).

Is there ANY reason that this first preparation for binding might prepare quires consisting of only one bifolio, and that it woud put those single-bifolio quires at any other point than the edges of the finished product ? If there is not, it indicates that q16 and q18 were composed of 4 bifoliae each, like most of the others, but that 3 of those had disappeared by the time the folio numbers were added (Looking further, I suppose it is likely that those pages were foldouts, like q14 through q19 have in abundance, but this doesn't prevent the existence of more missing unnumbered bifoliae)

Then, for which reason would the first preparator prepare uneven quires (I can see two of them, but none can apply to q8 : either a clear semantic/stylistic link, which explains q20 but q8's remaining bifoliae aren't clearly semantically tied, or the physical unwieldyness of long quires with foldouts, which explains q14 through 19 but can't explain LONGER than usual quires) ? q8 is longer than all other quires (except q20, with its very different text layout than the rest), and as long as q13, which is stylistically coherent, but f57, 58, 65 and 66 are quite different to each other, and they aren't even consistent recto to verso (f57r and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. can be in the same section, but they are clearly different from the pair f57v-f66r). Currier finds both Language A and Language B in this quire, and the images look to belong in different sections, which indicates one of the following :

There is a hidden semantic connection justifying to join together bifoliae like that, and the quirer understood the language (very unlikely, as Lisa Fagin Davis' work tends to suggest that quiring itself was a misunderstanding of the book, which should have stayed as a collection of loose leaves, or should have been quired as a thick pile of singulions)
The missing bifoliae contain drawings and text bridging the gap (possible, but unhelpful)
Q8 was from the start a patchwork quire, gathering everything that doesn't fit (this indicates that q16 and q18 were bigger than a sigular bifolio without foldouts each, as else they could have been joined into q8 and the resulting quire would still not have been thicker than q20, which by its existence, shows that quires this big are practical ; it doesn't explain, though, why it would have been numbered this low, rather than being put at the end)
All quires were initially this big and we shouldn't read into 8's length (not really realistic, as it means 7 bifoliae are missing, one in each of the first 7 quires; the most probable outcome would have been to have unequal quires at the start)

The most probable outcome, for me and for now, is the proposition 3 : q16 and q18 were longer than one standard bifolio each, but all the unnumbered ones were lost between quiring and foliating. I still don't have a good idea of why the quirer would create distinct-length quires in the middle of the book rather than counting the extra leaves at the end of the quiring process, but that might be tied to the process itself, in which case I'd love an idea]]>
Reading Rene Zandbergen's blog, a few things jumped to my mind. In You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., he retraces the most probable evolution of the manuscript in these terms :

Quote:The points that have been presented in relation to the order of production of the MS may now be summarised.

The MS was produced in a bifolio-per-bifolio manner, with the drawing outlines inked first, followed by the inking of the text;

The quire numbers were added before the folio numbers;

The page order has been disturbed, and this happened before both sets of numbers were added;

The painting was done before the present binding;

The quire and folio numbers were added before the present binding;

Some of the painting appears to have been done after the folio numbers were added;

Twelve of the fourteen missing folios were lost after the folio numbers were added, but before the present binding.

This leads to the following tentative reconstruction:
All bifolios of the MS were prepared: the drawing outlines and the text were added in ink;

Sometime after this, the planned order of the bifolios was disturbed. The bifolios were stacked anew in an incorrect order (implying that the person who did this was not the original author) but the set was still complete. (The interesting task of identifying the original page order has not been completed, and has mainly been driven by Nick Pelling);

The quires were numbered first, the MS may have been bound, and the folios were numbered after that. (This initial binding is not necessary but would explain the inconsistency of the quire and folio numbers of quire 9);

At this point, the book had all folios including the now missing ones, and was not painted, or only partially painted. Folio 42 would not have been painted yet;

The MS was disassembled and painted (or the partial painting completed). Six bifolios were lost or removed at this point;

Shortly after the painting, the MS was rebound in the same order, but with the six bifolios missing. Folios 12 and 74 would have still been there. Especially the blue paint transferred on opposite pages;

Folios 12 and 74 were cut out sometime later

There is a hidden semantic connection justifying to join together bifoliae like that, and the quirer understood the language (very unlikely, as Lisa Fagin Davis' work tends to suggest that quiring itself was a misunderstanding of the book, which should have stayed as a collection of loose leaves, or should have been quired as a thick pile of singulions)
The missing bifoliae contain drawings and text bridging the gap (possible, but unhelpful)
Q8 was from the start a patchwork quire, gathering everything that doesn't fit (this indicates that q16 and q18 were bigger than a sigular bifolio without foldouts each, as else they could have been joined into q8 and the resulting quire would still not have been thicker than q20, which by its existence, shows that quires this big are practical ; it doesn't explain, though, why it would have been numbered this low, rather than being put at the end)
All quires were initially this big and we shouldn't read into 8's length (not really realistic, as it means 7 bifoliae are missing, one in each of the first 7 quires; the most probable outcome would have been to have unequal quires at the start)