(06-02-2026, 03:34 PM)eggyk wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(06-02-2026, 01:59 PM)proto57 wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As for the page itself, there is nothing about it that, in my opinion, evokes a 17th century authorship. Below you can see my own work back in 2013 on the left, which this morning, for this post, I have added an image of the real You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. on the right. In my 2012 image... if you look closely... I used "layers" in my graphics program to place Salani's image over a very lightened f14v. You can see that many of the elements line up perfectly, as though traced, while there are added elements such as a new leaf, and different roots, and so on. I think it was traced, either on a light table, with an opaque projector, or perhaps a camera lucida:

Do we have the true size of that copied page, so that it can be compared to the VMS? This is the first time i've read about this, and I unfortunately have had a lot of difficulty sourcing a good version of the Salani image and still can't find a version with a true scale.

Anyway, I noticed that in your layered image many aspects of the text and plant do not line up, but upon doing the same thing in my graphics program you can make everything line up almost perfectly (With resizing of course, but I don't know the relative sizes of both).

Knowing the true size would go some way in knowing how it was copied. Sorry if im once again derailing anything 

Prof. Paolo Bensi, 2013 wrote:The chronological indications that we can draw from the results of the analyses, in light of our knowledge
of the history of materials, are as follows:

The pink dye, which has the characteristics of a synthetic substance, indicates a dating of the
analyzed layers later than 1856; these compounds are still in use.

The green tones:

- if the presence of Cobalt and Zinc green is assumed, the dating is later
than the 1830s;
- however, the presence of Titanium shifts the dating at least to the First World War,
when titanium white was put on the market;

- if, as seems almost certain based on the analyses, Cobalt titanate was used
(with Nickel as a possible accessory element), we know that the pigment was
patented in 1933.

Logwood ink, alone or with iron, indicates a date at least later than 1525:
this material was used until the Second World War, then went out of production.

It should be added that the analyses did not detect materials of the type expected in miniatures and
watercolor drawings prior to the eighteenth century, such as tannic inks with iron and/or copper, verdigris,
malachite, copper resinate, cinnabar, minium, orpiment, lead yellows, cochineal lakes.

If we compare ourselves with the investigations carried out by McCrone Associates on the copy of the
Voynich manuscript in New Haven, we see that among the most significant materials identified were:
iron-tannic inks, azurite, organic copper compounds (probable copper resinate), atacamite
(copper chlorides), lead oxide yellows or oranges; in this case, these are pigments of an
ancient type, not detected in the parchment under examination.

Summing up these indications, we can affirm, to complement the results and hypotheses of
Professor Baraldi, that the chromatic layers of the drawing under examination date back to the twentieth century, most
probably to the years between 1918-20 and the 1940s.

Certainly, the analyses themselves do not allow us to say that the entire painting was done in the 20th century, leaving the doubt that a 20th-century repainting occurred on an older base (not earlier than 1525, however), but apart from the ultramarine, and the particles of yellow ochre and calcium carbonate, present in all eras, no material has been found that can be defined as ancient, therefore the hypothesis of repainting appears highly improbable.