RE: VMs: new revelations

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxx>]

One of the problems with f1r is that it has been exposed to some
sort of adverse weathering, and the addition of chemicals (the
swabbing of which can be seen at the bottom of the page in the
microfilm copy).  Perhaps the signature was not as durable as the
VMS ink, and therefore 'weathered away'?  If I recall correctly,
it was only through an accident of photography that the signature
was discovered at all?

GC

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of Nick Pelling
> Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 5:08 AM
> To: vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: VMs: new revelations
>
>
> At 22:47 02/01/03 +0100, Rafal T. Prinke wrote:
> > > But still, why would de Tepenecz' autograph have
> been removed
> > > in the first place?
> >
> >The conspiracy theory would be that Voynich used sympathetic
> >ink for the signature so that it couldn't be easily
> >compared to the original signatures of Tepenecz.
>
> ...or that Voynich forged the signature himself, then
> realised that he had
> to remove it so as to prevent people checking his
> modern ink? :-)
>
> It's the fact that a signature (presumably denoting
> ownership) had been
> removed *without another being put in its place* that
> confuses me. Is that
> normal behaviour for MS owners of this period?
>
> Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
>
> ________________________________________________________
> ______________
> To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with
> a body saying:
> unsubscribe vms-list
>

______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list