RE: VMs: Bifolios and Smudges

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nick, I agree the quality of the images leave a lot to be desired, even when
I'm checking against three separate sources.  Still, it is interesting to
note that some quires don't have these smudges at all, and some bifolios
within the "smudged" quires were hardly affected by whatever damage this
represents, while both bifolios on either side demonstrate similar damage.

As to the anomalous [hb] folios in the first 7 quires, there is a high
correspondence of common words in bifolios 18, 21, and 23, and if they were
put together, they'd probably be in the right order, with 21 in the middle.
bf17 has the highest correspondence with 18, so it's probably in the right
place as well.  bf14 is a bit of a mystery.  bf26 and bf27 want to go with
bf17 and 18 respectively, but 14 just doesn't want to fit comfortably
anywhere.  bf14 may be out of place, and here's why - it's highest-to-lowest
correspondence, by bifolio:

23 21 18 17 26 27

This is a backward image of the order the other bifolios want to fall into,
making the order of bifolios 27, 26, 17, 18, 21, 23, 14.  The only ones that
could flip in this order are 26 and 27, which would retain their positions
at the first, but flip thus: 26, 27, 17, 18, 21, 23, 14.

Certainly not the only way of determining order, but an interesting look
anyway.  I'd wager that 18, 21, and 23 are in the correct order however.

GC

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of Nick Pelling
> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 3:38 AM
> To: vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: VMs: Bifolios and Smudges
>
>
> 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

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