Re: VMs: Bifolios and Smudges

[Nick Pelling <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi GC,

At 23:50 26/07/2003 -0500, GC wrote:
> Following the "bifolio" thread for awhile, I just ran a study that indicates
> a strong association between bifolio 21 and bifolio 23.  That would be,
> bf21= 41r,41v,48r,48v, and bf23= 43r,43v,46r,46v.  These two bifolios share
> 84 words in common, one of the highest counts between bifolios in the herbal
> section, and several of the words are unique to these two bifolios only.
> Both are [hb] bifolios that appear to be out of place.
>
> I was going through the images at the same time to look for Nick's "smudge"
> evidence, and noticed something odd about the smudges at the tops of certain
> folios.  Like a water stain that changes shape as it soaks through pages,
> the smudges do the same, leading me to think these are water damage of some
> sort.  Most seem to be in the right place, but some just don't add up.
>
> I'd hate to jump to any conclusions on this without having others look at
> the same progressions.  I will however say that I would personally place the
> smudges from bifolio 21 in a different order, and that order would probably
> be somewhere in the proximity of bifolio 23.
>
> Keep in mind that "water damage" is sheer speculation on my part and there
> could be other reasonable explanations.

Having looked at both the CopyFlo and the no-ip scans for this kind of 
feature, I have to say that while (like you) I'm reasonably convinced 
there's a little water damage at the top of a few pages, I don't think the 
quality (and type) of the scans we have isn't really high enough to make 
particularly strong inferences from. :-(

Having said that, I'm completely comfortable with your idea that bifolios 
21 & 23 were next to each other when the (predicted) water damage occurred. :-)

Cheers, .....Nick Pelling..... 


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