Assumptions baked into the VMS carbon dating

[Oscroft]

It's much less separate objects than you'd think. You can get several bifolios out of the same skin. And as far as I'm aware, nothing in the VM shows that some skins are of a different supply. They are all of similar size and quality.

I'm not an expert in C14 dating (though I do have some education in the science behind it), and I also have no expertise in medieval writings (just a fascination with historical mysteries, and a love of the past - which, coincidentally, grows as I get older ).

But, I'm quite sure the C14 experts together with the historical experts at the Beinecke (and elsewhere) fully considered exactly the points above along with other points mentioned in this thread. And people trying to challenge their conclusions really need to examine carefully the range of information and reasoning that went into those conclusions - there's a lot more to it than a table of historical dating estimates (plus a bit of science that most of us don't understand).

When we use modern technology, we don't just add another guess to the list of previous guesses and value them all equally. We refine and replace the old estimates that were based on far inferior knowledge. So, for example, old Wilfrid's Bacon-era claim is of documentary interest only - we know it's wrong. Anything prior to the C14 dating surely has to be erased from the range of dates we should consider today.

For me at least, between 1404 and 1438 CE with a 95% probability simply *is* the established dating of the parchment. And a contemporary evaluation of the handwriting by those who understand it *is* the established dating of that part of the question. Unless and until better technology or greater expertise should overturn either.

So do I think amateur sleuths like the regulars on this forum should just accept that and move on? Oh no, not at all. While I see little chance of any current alternative proposals coming good, we can't say for sure. Maybe one day...