If the cartouche paint is truly squared off into a deliberate flat edge on that side which rides within the edge of the adjacent block, then this is compelling evidence that the cartouche was painted in situ and not at the quarry...unless we believe the stones were anticipated already at the quarry to be positioned within that accuracy and that whoever drew the glyphs at the quarry wanted to ensure everything was legible from up there in the rafters! I believe this is extremely unlikely since the quarrymen would have drawn the frame with proper proportions to fit within the exposed surface with all rounded edges intact without needing to distort one side.
Considering that it makes so much more sense that the stones would be labeled as such at the quarry, and not during the rigorous construction process (especially considering that the glyphs may actually refer to positioning the stone and not merely to workgang, feel-good graffiti), I think it is more reasonable to postulate that this particular cartouche was painted in situ and not at the quarry and that whoever drew it had little sense of proportion and erroneously made the cartouche frame too big and had to truncate it on one side. This certainly adds to the notion that Vyse's discovery was a fraud, regardless of whether he merely edited a pre-existing cartouche or painted the entire thing from scratch.
There is no way to know for sure what happened back then, but there is enough physical evidence to give us reason for doubt, and so we must restrain from giving Vyse the traditional, unconditional credibility he has enjoyed up until now.
And thanks for your warm welcome.
Post Edited (16-Jul-14 17:38)
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?