OK I've lost or deleted the image of the other glyph..
Look on Scots fraud thread it may be there .
I'm referring to the glyph that is to the right and lower than the contentious glyph. Near the far right end of the gable.
First of all the colour difference you mentioned.. I'm glad you noticed.
It's an art thing which I know you do not like so I'll try to be scientifical :)
The colour is the same, in that it is red.. same frequency.. long wave visible light..
However the Hue is different. Still red, but a different hue.
Some glyphs are red/blue and some are red/yellow. Some have both.
The contentious cartouch is all red/blue.
Modern digital cameras use daylight balanced white light flash.. (colour temperature). So therefore I would suggest that the Dowell images represent a fairly accurate representation of the RELATIVE hues. The representation of the exact hue is not important . The fact that there is a difference is.
Now to the other glyph in the corner , which is also a "gang of whoever" and it contains a chick. This chick is mostly red/orange. it is also drawn in a completely different way. I can even tell you in which order the brush strokes were made. And that the AE painter was using a worn out brush.
Research AE Paintbrushes.
Anyway I feel that the red/orange glyph in the corner is ancient.
And that the red/blue contentious glyph is not it's contemporary.
If you look at the "corner glyph chick" you can see that the underlying stone has deteriorated in the region of the chicks head, and also around the chisel "hand guide".. however the chicks head paint is intact.
Intact in that it is painted in red/blue paint as opposed to the rest of its body which is painted in red/orange paint.
It's been retouched.
None of this would have been apparent during the 19th cent. working with yellow oil lamps.
Enter 21st century technology.. Japanese camera.
One last point you will notice that there is a remarkable difference in the way the chicks are drawn.. contentious glyph/corner glyph.
This is not just down to a "scribal hand"..
The way in which something is drawn or painted is partly determined by the tool that was used. in this case the brush or rather brushes.
So with a strong "maybe", the corner glyph was drawn with a short stiff AE brush, that was suffering from bristle separation. And the contentious Glyph was drawn with a 19th century fine chinese brush bought from Harrods, London. (nice swoopy curves)
Lastly before I bore you to death..
The contentious cartouch loop was drawn in one stroke. anticlockwise bottom to bottom, only a long fine chinese brush would have held enough paint to do this. That is one of their qualities. They go on and on forever.
Look at the Hill facsimile. (chinese brush).. probably bought from Harrods at the same time as the other.
A short stubby AE brush would not have been able to achieve this.
This is not science, it is art. however if it were a more modern painting all of the above and much more would raise eyebrows and be a good case for further testing.
Elementary my Dear Watson..
And I hope that wasn't too "artistical" for you.. ;-)
Post Edited (07-Sep-14 18:25)