New images: Marci letter wax

[proto57]

OK, I'm stepping in here before we have another round of this debate.  We have a policy of one thread per theory.  Discussions about whether the manuscript is a modern hoax should stay on the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..  Let's keep this thread on topic.

Thank you, Tavie... but a couple of points:

- I am responding to topics directly challenging and supporting the issue of genuine vs. fake here, I've not introduced it.

- Because every discussion, for that matter, on any of these threads, is directly relating to the nature of the Voynich, such as origin and meaning, but also age and authenticity

- In this case, determining the origin and use of the watermark in question is very much on topic, and so are the arguments Lisa, and others, put forth to defend any present or future inability to find such a watermark, and what it means.

So trying, as you just did, to filter out any related discussion that mentions the modern forgery possibilities, I think is inappropriate. I've very much stayed on topic, and I hope given some readers at least, "food for thought" on the watermark, seal, folds, "absence of evidence" adage, all topics on this very thread.

EDIT TO POINT OUT: "Genuine 1420" is very much a theory, as any other, including Modern Forgery.. yet, the 1420 Genuine theory is on every thread, and not isolated to just one, as you suggest mine and other alternative theories do. All theories overlap all evidence, either fitting or not the particular evidence being discussed.