> The puzzle for forgery proponents being that
> Perring’s version presumably represents what our
> hypothetical forgers believed, making this the
> wrong place for half a cartouche, other than on
> the secondary assumption (which seems unavoidable,
> given the primary) that the blocks were recut ad
> hoc to fit.
The forgery debate is of secondary importance, or only in so much as it may effect the possible positioning of blocks in the 3D drawing that I'm working on. The M&R drawings were based on Perring. At the moment everything is pointing toward the block heights being accurately depicted by both draughtsmen. However some photographs seem to contradict this.
I'll have to follow two possibilities, one with sidewall blocks positioned on top of granite beams, (Perring). The other with granite beams terminating at and abutted to the sidewalls, (assuming Perring was wrong).
Personally and from a purely structural perspective, I would be very surprised if the granite beams terminate at the walls, bearing in mind the high loading and the very minimal support given by a comparatively narrow ledge underneath.
The actual beam length cannot be determined.
As for the forgery debate..
A... The cartouche is half obscured, beam ends and walls abutted with very minimal beam support from underneath.
B... According to the Perring drawing, the cartouche lower half doesn't exist. For whatever reason.
If Perring is correct... I agree the side wall, raw blocks were undoubtedly carved in situ to match the irregular cross sectional profile of the granite beams.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 14-Mar-17 23:13 by Jon Ellison.