> Really? Perhaps I should start “cleaning up” my images — but
> then I know that “cleaning” presupposes a judgement on what is
> and what it not legitimately present and in that judgement the
> entire issue is judged.
Yes, "really". I think the context of what I meant by "cleaning up" is clear.
> Perhaps you could explain why we don’t see this “pen trail”
> (first horizontal line) in the second circle, if Vyse was so
> prone to it? Or, for that matter, in the empty circles on the
Where did I say he was "prone" to it? It looks to me as if one was drawn with a little more care than the other with the circle in question, also given its relative size and insignificant placement on the page, more consistent with a random thought or "doodle". His penmanship is beautiful and his drawings suck. He is sketching in a notebook, not using autocad, so pen trails, double lines, wavy lines, ect would be typical particularly with this kind of pen.
> Only once do we see this “pen trail”.
No. You can see one on the bottom right on the lower circle as well as those in the cartouches, though obviously not as extreme, but the circle in question, again, is more of a throwaway "doodle".
> That suggests to me
> that Vyse was not prone to accidental “pen trails” in his
> circles at all — that where we see lines, he put them in
I disagree. There are numerous "accidental" mistakes in all of his drawings as would be expected from someone who apparently is no artist sketching with a nibbed fountain pen in particular.
> I have to say also that the slant of his writing isn’t
> obviously suggestive of his having been left-handed.
Why not? My handwriting slants forward. His circles appear to be left handed. I need a right handed person to test this, but from the looks of it his circles start and stop at the same place mine do.
> > You can also see that the bottom "horizontal line" is
> connected to the
> > center "dot"" by a pen trail and is not a separate line but
> rather an
> > artifact of drawing the dot.
> Actually, no, I can’t see that, certainly not clearly.
> more inclined to see a pen trail here than I am in the case of
> the first horizontal line, but what I see is more suggestive of
> hesitancy than a dot. (He managed to dot his i’s and j’s with
> no obvious sign of difficulty.)
As I said, just quickly draw a circle and this "curlycue" is exactly where it would be as is the termination point for all of his circles. There is a big difference between "dotting ones i's and j's", particularly with this kind of pen, and drawing a filled in circle which we are only referring to as a "dot" for convenience. When one wants to "dot an i" it is merely a tap of the pen. When one wants to draw a filled in circle with this kind of pen in particular it is much easier and safer to go back and forth side to side instead of in a circle as the nib digs into the paper on the upturn. I am not making up an argument from nothing, these are just some of the tricks and/or haphazards of drawing with these pens.
> I see him drawing the circle, drawing the first horizontal
> line, starting on the second, realising that the circle really
> isn’t big enough and starting again below.
I see a hastily drawn doodle which he follows through at the top of the circle and trails the pen straight across. The "dot" is made by quickly moving the pen back and forth and the mark below it is a trail and impact from the last line. And honestly, just looking at the two, if they were meant to be one and the same why is the top one so poorly defined while the other is plain as day?
Again, I am 100% certain a handwriting expert could easily clear this up. I have been drawing my whole life and have worked professionally in the past as a cartoonist and when I look at his drawings I see very common pen line artifacts of drawing with ink, particularly with a nib. Just looking at it and drawing the same things quickly I can easily "accidentally" reproduce both the top line and the bottom line from the dot.
> What I don’t see is anything which even begins to justify the
> hype about this being a “historic discovery” and “damning”
> evidence. Damning? I wouldn’t issue a caution on evidence
> this thin.
I am not arguing with you about that, or anything else that rubs you wrong about Scott, I am just telling you what I see in that circle. If this is some "sinister plot" or "historic discovery" I am none the wiser, but regardless the drawing in question does look like a scribbled circle with a dot with common accidental artifacts.
If we did want to have this looked at by a handwriting expert is there a "Stower approved" scan you can post here of a good viewable size?
Post Edited (27-May-14 22:37)