- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
'P' is the key
- 'P' is the key
-
RE: 'P' is the key
Loose_Spell_9313 > 08-03-2026, 10:49 PM
(08-03-2026, 10:32 PM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The MAP (the thing with the land and sea) is 22x19cm, on a sheet of VELLUM sized 29cm x 41cm.
Yes, so I don't know why you would keep editing the labels in your photos to show 29cm, when the vellum measures 22cm. Again, in vellum to vellum comparison, this leaves only a 1.5cm difference..I don't understand why you would keep measuring vellum to sheet. It does not make sense.
Quote:I have come into this conversation in good faith, and you have accused me of spreading misinfomation, lying, and obfuscating when I haven't done any of that. I took your theory at face value and tried to respect it and give it genuine feedback. I sat there trying to match what you did, tried to align things (you forgot the part where I also tried aligning the sheets at the same scale that you did and many other scales, but nevermind).
I am commenting directly on things you said and did.
You stated, as fact, that the vellum on map with ship measured 29cm x 41cm and failed to mention the difference in measurement between sheet size and and vellum size, in addition to attributing the vellum size to sheet size. This seems to have been intentional because.. obviously you knew the sheet measurements and vellum size, and knew they weren't the same, because again you went and found them.
You then went to make images that repeatedly utilized the wrong measurements. -
RE: 'P' is the key
eggyk > 08-03-2026, 11:02 PM
(08-03-2026, 10:49 PM)Loose_Spell_9313 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(08-03-2026, 10:32 PM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The MAP (the thing with the land and sea) is 22x19cm, on a sheet of VELLUM sized 29cm x 41cm.
Yes, so I don't know why you would keep editing the labels in your photos to show 29cm, when the vellum measures 22cm. Again, in vellum to vellum comparison, this leaves only a 1.5cm difference..I don't understand why you would keep measuring vellum to sheet. It does not make sense.
I'm going to make one last image, but its clear that you're doing this deliberately or using an LLM with memory loss. You cannot possibly not understand what i'm saying.
The vellum is 29x41cm, and on that vellum is a map of size 22cmx19cm.
(08-03-2026, 10:49 PM)Loose_Spell_9313 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.failed to mention the difference in measurement between sheet size and and vellum size, in addition to attributing the vellum size to sheet size. This seems to have been intentional because.. obviously you knew the sheet measurements and vellum size,
The sheet size is the sheet of vellum. The vellum size IS the sheet size, because it's a sheet of vellum. So yes, it's intentional because it's correct.
The vellum is not 22x19cm, because its clear to see that the sides do not have that ratio.
Perhaps the people on reddit were onto something. -
RE: 'P' is the key
Loose_Spell_9313 > 08-03-2026, 11:30 PM
No, I see where the difference in interpretation is now.
My interpretation
Sheet=29cm/41cm black background its on
Vellum= the entirety of the vellum represented is 22cm/19cm
Your interpretation
Sheet=29cm/41cm entire vellum piece
Map= 22cm/19 cm
If you can point to a point of reference where this is clarified, even a series of historical precedent, that would be great. I don't know how one would classify what makes part of the map vs what doesn't in your version though- because without knowing the contents, how could anyone? If you don't have an answer, that's fine- I don't either. I think the only person I would trust to clarify at that point is someone who has handled or has access to the document. -
RE: 'P' is the key
tavie > 08-03-2026, 11:32 PM
(08-03-2026, 09:58 PM)Loose_Spell_9313 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Okay, I'll entertain the notion you weren't intentionally lying. Here's what I have issue with.
This is the second spat you've been involved in on this thread after asking for respect. You're not going to get it when you make such accusations. Please tone it down.
(08-03-2026, 11:02 PM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm going to make one last image, but its clear that you're doing this deliberately or using an LLM with memory loss. You cannot possibly not understand what i'm saying. The vellum is 29x41cm, and on that vellum is a map of size 22cmx19cm.
I would suggest there is a third option: they genuinely misinterpreted that "vellum" only pertains to the portion of the map because the word appears immediately before the map's measurements in the below description, rather than at the end where the sheet's measurements are.
Quote:Map with Ship: 1 map : ms., vellum ; 22 x 19 cm., on sheet 29 x 41 cm. (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
At some point in this thread, I have missed what the merits are of having a dispute on what precisely 'vellum' refers to, and I'm not putting myself through reading it again. Surely the key point is that there is a sheet - let's not mention the v word for argument's sake - that measures 29 x 41 cm, and on that sheet there is a drawing of a map that measures 22 x 19 cm? We can all agree on that, right? -
RE: 'P' is the key
eggyk > 08-03-2026, 11:40 PM
(08-03-2026, 11:32 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.At some point in this thread, I have missed what the merits are of having a dispute on what precisely 'vellum' refers to, and I'm not putting myself through reading it again. Surely the key point is that there is a sheet - let's not mention the v word for argument's sake - that measures 29 x 41 cm, and on that sheet there is a drawing of a map that measures 22 x 19 cm? We can all agree on that, right?
That is my opinion, yes. They are stating that the whole thing (the material) is 22x19cm, which doesn't make sense.
It only matters in that we are matching the specific stains on one document and another, so the true scale would matter.
It doesn't actually matter because it doesn't closely match either way (i tried every way possible).
(08-03-2026, 11:32 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would suggest there is a third option: they genuinely misinterpreted that "vellum" only pertains to the portion of the map because the word appears immediately before the map's measurements in the below description, rather than at the end where the sheet's measurements are.
Yes, that is possible. I had already explained and annotated what I meant many times so I got a bit worked up. -
RE: 'P' is the key
Loose_Spell_9313 > 08-03-2026, 11:44 PM
(08-03-2026, 11:40 PM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(08-03-2026, 11:32 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.At some point in this thread, I have missed what the merits are of having a dispute on what precisely 'vellum' refers to, and I'm not putting myself through reading it again. Surely the key point is that there is a sheet - let's not mention the v word for argument's sake - that measures 29 x 41 cm, and on that sheet there is a drawing of a map that measures 22 x 19 cm? We can all agree on that, right?
That is my opinion, yes. They are stating that the whole thing (the material) is 22x19cm, which doesn't make sense.
It only matters in that we are matching the specific stains on one document and another, so the true scale would matter.
It doesn't actually matter because it doesn't closely match either way (i tried every way possible).
Quote: No, I see where the difference in interpretation is now.
My interpretation
Sheet=29cm/41cm black background its on
Vellum= the entirety of the vellum represented is 22cm/19cm
Your interpretation
Sheet=29cm/41cm entire vellum piece
Map= 22cm/19 cm
If you can point to a point of reference where this is clarified, even a series of historical precedent, that would be great. I don't know how one would classify what makes part of the map vs what doesn't in your version though- because without knowing the contents, how could anyone? If you don't have an answer, that's fine- I don't either. I think the only person I would trust to clarify at that point is someone who has handled or has access to the document.
and to be unbiased, I acknowledge the the 22x19 on just the velum has some proportion issues as far as height-width by that logic- hence my confusion. To me it doesn't make sense why they would differentiate between vellum and sheet. It kinda makes it seem like a materials separation- instead of something like Vellum 29cm/41cm; map 22cm/19cm). -
RE: 'P' is the key
oshfdk > 09-03-2026, 12:12 AM
(08-03-2026, 11:44 PM)Loose_Spell_9313 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If you can point to a point of reference where this is clarified
This one is easy. The Library of Congress entry makes the following reference:
Quote:Further description of map appeared in article: Bagrow, Leo, 1948. The maps from the home archives of the descendants of a friend of Marco Polo. Imago Mundi, vol. V.
The article is available on JSTOR with a free account. Quoting from page 6:
Quote:The map is now in the Library of Congress. The dimensions of this map: full size of parchment - 40 X 28 cm; size of map (maximum extent measured) 19 X 26 cm.
-
RE: 'P' is the key
Loose_Spell_9313 > 09-03-2026, 12:39 AM
(09-03-2026, 12:12 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(08-03-2026, 11:44 PM)Loose_Spell_9313 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If you can point to a point of reference where this is clarified
This one is easy. The Library of Congress entry makes the following reference:
Quote:Further description of map appeared in article: Bagrow, Leo, 1948. The maps from the home archives of the descendants of a friend of Marco Polo. Imago Mundi, vol. V.
The article is available on JSTOR with a free account. Quoting from page 6:
Quote:The map is now in the Library of Congress. The dimensions of this map: full size of parchment - 40 X 28 cm; size of map (maximum extent measured) 19 X 26 cm.
I think we run into the same issue though, because yes, it says size of parchment size of map- but again, how does one determine what parts are a map without knowing the contents beyond the box? I see the logic for "map, rectangle" don't get me wrong, but I just dont know how one would apply a uniform measurement to that in a way that is non-speculative.
Even the JSTOR literature uses a variety of the terms that create some ambiguity: parchment, vellum, and map. Vellum and parchment are different materials.
Anyway, I think my argument is still there's lexical ambiguity. -
RE: 'P' is the key
eggyk > 09-03-2026, 01:00 AM
(09-03-2026, 12:39 AM)Loose_Spell_9313 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think we run into the same issue though, because yes, it says size of parchment size of map- but again, how does one determine what parts are a map without knowing the contents beyond the box? I see the logic for "map, rectangle" don't get me wrong, but I just dont know how one would apply a uniform measurement to that in a way that is non-speculative.
Even the JSTOR literature uses a variety of the terms that create some ambiguity: parchment, vellum, and map. Vellum and parchment are different materials.
Anyway, I think my argument is still there's lexical ambiguity.
The map is the part contained within the the box + the box itself. Library of congress have chosen to not include the ~4cm of embellishments at the top as part of the map, while the article includes it.
Its not really that speculative. The map is the map, the ship is the ship, and the text is the text. It's quite nicely seperated.
In every case, the distance from the top to the bottom of the page is either 28cm or 29cm. -
RE: 'P' is the key
oshfdk > 09-03-2026, 01:24 AM
Vellum is a type of parchment, as far as I know. I see no ambiguity at all. I also don't think I've seen any good arguments for any of your hypotheses so far.