The focus of my puzzlement was that in your statement (Graham) you seemed to be using these quarry marks as a justification of you position. You seemed to be saying that, because these marks existed, you had no reason to doubt the Vyse cartouche any longer, as if they showed that the one discovered by Vyse (while he was alone, during the SECOND day in the upper chambers) was now true.
I am aware (I think) of all the for's and against's in this ongoing Vyse forgery theory. The fact that quarry marks exist is not a remarkable one. They have been found all over the Giza site, even on the outside of the GP itself, preserved by casing stone and then sand. The fact that these marks can be seen in gaps inside the GP doesn't suprise me. What suprises me is that their existance seems to have convinced you that the Vyse discovery is real. Vyse must have been aware of these marks on the Giza Site as well and could v.easily have placed the cartouch there himself.
If I have mis-understood your response, please feel free to correct me. I was just hoping that you could share some first hand insite that would help sway me for or against the theories. I can only assume that your position statement, in some way smoothed the waters with Dr Hawass, enabling your eased access to the PG and surrounding areas. But please, don't be closed to new evidence, if and when it surfaces. So much of the Orthadox Egyptiological community could look very silly if even ONE of the major alternative theories is proved accurate.
Me, I'm open to the facts. I don't think anyone has a strong enough stand point to give the GP a definate age. 2500, 10500, I'll just be happy if we can settle it once and for all.
All the best