Re: VMs: Re: Re: Inks and retouching

["GC" <gc-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nick wrote:

> Ooops, sorry for waking your neighbours, my mistake - I didn't  mean the
> obvious water stain on f93r at all, I actually meant the ink-like stain on
> f103r instead. Of course f93r is the gen-u-wine artigal, there's no
> retouching there at all. It's a different story for f103r, though. :-)

I would agree on both counts.  I agree it is most probably an ink stain, and
as I think you pointed out earlier, the two portions can be seen separating
from one another.  One portion has almost obliterated the usually indelible
text, a good sign that the stain is ink or some solvent of the same base as
the ink.

I also agree that there is retouching in this stain, and would go as far in
observation of the glyphs as to say these were probably not done by the
author, but much later.  But here we have an immediate and isolated attempt
to restore accidental damage, probably very quickly after the stain was
made.  No attempt was made to restore text on the verso folio in this area.

I'm wondering about color deconvolution and whether some of the extraneous
writing can be used as a 'bench mark' against the Voynich text.  There are
two different hands on f116v, and that means two people writing, not likely
from the same ink bottle.  Is there any color manipulation methodology that
can pick out the differences in these two inks?

GC

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