Good research has to be willing to weaken one of its own favourite arguments.
Quire 9 is a perfect example.
For years, one of the most attractive physical reconstructions of the Voynich Manuscript began with what looked like old sewing evidence in a fold that is not used by the present binding.
The idea was elegant.
The quire number “9” looks awkward in the current fold configuration.
Move the binding crease to the apparently older fold and the quire mark lands where a gathering number would make much better sense.
That looked like evidence of an earlier sewn binding.
Then conservators looked more closely.
During the November 2014 inspection of the manuscript, the supposed unused stitching gaps were examined directly. They were not old sewing holes.
They were tiny knife cuts made in preparation for binding.
And crucially:
the cuts had never been used as sewing stations.
That does not destroy the Quire 9 problem.
It makes it better.
The evidence now supports something more precise: the large foldout appears to have been prepared for one configuration, while the quire mark also makes sense relative to that configuration, but the sheet was integrated into the codex differently.
Whether it was ever actually sewn in the earlier configuration is no longer supported by those cuts.
Quire 9 may remember an abandoned or altered binding plan more securely than it remembers an earlier completed binding.
Evidence Upgrade — What Changed
This article previously described the alternative fold as preserving “old stitching holes” from an earlier binding.
That formulation is too strong.
René Zandbergen’s updated codicological account records the 2014 conservation finding: the marks initially interpreted as unused stitching gaps are shallow knife cuts associated with preparation for binding, they were never used for actual sewing, and their positions do not match the present sewing stations.
The corrected evidence ladder is therefore:
- Known: the alternative fold contains knife-preparation cuts.
- Known: those cuts were not used as sewing stations.
- Known: the quire mark appears awkward under the present fold arrangement.
- Known: the folio numbers 67 and 68 make sense under the present configuration.
- Strongly suggestive: the alternative fold represents a deliberately prepared configuration rather than accidental damage.
- Plausible: the quire mark was added while that alternative configuration was still intended.
- Possible: the sheet passed through an earlier completed binding state.
- Not established: that the alternative crease was ever sewn into a previous binding.
This is a stronger article because the claims now match the object more closely.
Quick Read
- Quire 9 is the very wide foldout associated with folios 67 and 68.
- In the present layout, folio 67 spans two panels and folio 68 spans three.
- The quire mark “9” appears in an unexpected position under the present folding/binding arrangement.
- An alternative fold in the sheet contains small knife cuts that conservators identified as preparation for binding.
- The 2014 inspection found that those cuts were never used for sewing and do not correspond to the present sewing stations.
- Under the alternative prepared fold, the quire mark sits in a more natural end-of-gathering position.
- The later folio numbers 67 and 68, however, fit the present configuration rather than that alternative one.
- One plausible reconstruction is therefore: the sheet was prepared one way, the quire number was added with that plan in mind, the sheet was integrated differently, and foliation followed the later arrangement.
- An earlier actual binding is possible but no longer supported by the supposed “old stitch holes”.
- The erased-and-rewritten folio number on f67 adds another unresolved clue; Zandbergen notes that the erased number may possibly have been 62 rather than 67.
- Quire 9 remains strong evidence that the surviving codex passed through planning and organisational changes.
- It is not secure evidence for one completely reconstructed earlier binding history.
What Exactly Is Quire 9?
Most manuscript gatherings are comparatively easy to imagine.
Fold several sheets.
Nest them.
Sew through the fold.
Quire 9 is not like that.
It is one unusually wide folded construction containing the complex now described through folios 67 and 68. Modern digital presentation divides the unfolded surfaces into viewing units such as f67r1, f67r2, f67v1, f67v2 and the multiple f68 panels.
Those identifiers help us study the images.
They can also make us forget the physical truth.
This is one sheet whose folds determine what becomes a folio, what becomes a flap, what sits at the gutter and which surfaces can be viewed together.
Change the fold and the physical interface of the information changes.
The Quire Mark Still Looks Wrong in the Present Configuration
The 2014 correction changes one piece of evidence.
It does not make the quire mark disappear.
Voynich quire marks usually occupy practical positions near the end of gatherings.
Quire 9’s mark remains awkward under the present layout.
That mismatch still demands explanation.
- The mark may have been placed incorrectly.
- The intended fold may have changed after the mark was added.
- The sheet may have been prepared for one arrangement but integrated using another.
- The quire-numbering act may itself belong to a provisional assembly stage.
The conservation finding changes which explanation is strongest.
It does not restore the present layout to unquestioned originality.
The Knife Cuts Are Evidence of Intention
A knife cut made to prepare a binding is different from a tear.
It is deliberate.
Somebody selected a position.
Prepared the vellum.
Expected sewing or integration to happen there.
Then it apparently did not.
This creates a rare kind of evidence:
a physical trace of a production or binding plan that may have been abandoned before completion.
That is not weaker history.
It is a different history.
Prepared Is Not Sewn
This distinction should be explicit every time Quire 9 is discussed.
A prepared sewing position tells us a binding configuration was contemplated or mechanically prepared.
A used sewing station tells us thread actually passed through and held the sheet in a bound state.
The 2014 inspection supports the first.
It does not support the second at that unused fold.
Therefore language such as “previously bound through this fold” should be removed unless another independent physical trace establishes it.
Why the Quire Mark Still Matters Beside the Prepared Fold
The prepared fold and the quire mark tell compatible stories.
Under that alternative configuration, the quire number occupies a more natural position.
This convergence makes the abandoned-plan interpretation more than a random crease theory.
Two independent observations point toward the same alternative geometry:
- deliberate knife preparation;
- quire-mark placement.
But neither proves thread ever passed through that prepared position.
This is exactly what an evidence ladder is for.
The Folio Numbers Belong to the Other Configuration
The numbers 67 and 68 create the second half of the problem.
They make sense for the configuration in which the sheet is presently integrated.
They would become awkward under the unused prepared fold.
This suggests the quire mark and foliation captured different organisational moments.
That fits the broader manuscript evidence that quire numbering preceded foliation.
A conservative relative sequence is therefore:
- the wide sheet is produced and folded;
- one alternative binding position is mechanically prepared with knife cuts;
- the quire mark is added in a way compatible with that planned configuration;
- the sheet is ultimately integrated using a different fold arrangement;
- folio numbers 67 and 68 are added in the later arrangement.
This sequence is plausible and fits the current physical observations.
It remains a reconstruction.
Could There Still Have Been an Earlier Binding?
Yes.
The 2014 observation does not prove there was no earlier binding anywhere in Quire 9’s history.
It proves that the particular knife cuts once cited as old sewing evidence were not actually used for sewing.
An earlier binding could have used other stations.
The sheet could have been temporarily assembled.
The codex could have had multiple interventions over six centuries.
But those possibilities now require their own evidence.
Possible history should not inherit evidence that conservation has already reassigned to another event.
The Erased Folio Number 67 Adds Another Layer
Zandbergen notes another curious feature.
The folio number 67 appears to have been erased and written again.
He raises the possibility that the erased number may have been 62 rather than 67.
This is not secure enough to rebuild the manuscript around.
It is exactly the kind of anomaly worth retaining.
If the erased reading were confirmed, it would imply active uncertainty or change during foliation itself.
If it is simply an overwritten 67, the implication is much smaller.
Better imaging and palaeographic review could discriminate.
Quire 9 Is Still Evidence Against Treating the Manuscript as a PDF
Nothing about the 2014 correction weakens this larger lesson.
A digital scan presents a stable sequence.
The physical manuscript preserves planning decisions, folds, numbering layers and changes.
The current interface is one historical state.
Quire 9 tells us that another configuration was at least prepared.
That is enough to make current panel adjacency historically contingent.
What Happens to the Visual-Adjacency Argument?
Researchers have noted that some circular diagrams make attractive neighbours under the alternative fold.
This remains relevant.
It becomes supporting evidence rather than the foundation.
The correct order of reasoning is now:
- observe the quire-mark anomaly;
- observe the deliberately prepared unused fold;
- note that the foliation belongs to the other configuration;
- then ask whether the alternative configuration also improves visual or textual continuity.
Visual fit can strengthen a physical reconstruction.
It should not resurrect old sewing evidence that conservation rejected.
f67r2 Remains an Exceptional Production Page
The binding correction does not affect another Quire 9 fact.
f67r2 is unusual.
It contains a ruled paragraph and red writing—features described as essentially unique in the manuscript.
The surrounding diagram uses circular and radial organisation.
Quire 9 therefore remains a concentrated production anomaly even if the exact binding history is less certain than previously thought.
See The Unruled Page and The Geometry Tools Problem.
The Two Numbering Systems Still Create a Timeline
The broader numbering architecture remains intact.
Quire marks and folio numbers belong to different organisational acts.
Across the manuscript, their relation to missing folios and present binding allows relative chronology to be reconstructed.
Quire 9 contributes a particularly complicated local case where:
- the quire mark suits one planned geometry;
- the folio numbers suit another realised geometry;
- the preparation cuts show the unrealised geometry was physically contemplated.
This is still an important timeline.
It is simply a timeline of planning and integration rather than a secure two-binding sequence.
See The Two Numbering Systems.
The Newer Binding Problem Provides the Larger Context
Since this Quire 9 case study was first published, eduKateSG’s Voynich estate has added a dedicated Binding Problem article.
That broader owner now handles sewing structures, quires, covers and the manuscript’s binding states across the entire codex.
Quire 9 should therefore do one job and do it precisely:
show how one foldout preserves a conflict among preparation marks, quire numbering, foliation and current integration.
The Contact-Transfer Evidence Is Another Independent Clock
The estate has also added a dedicated Contact-Transfer Problem.
Paint transfer between facing surfaces can sometimes preserve which pages touched after colour was applied.
This is important for Quire 9 because contact evidence can, in principle, test whether candidate historical configurations are compatible with the paint-transfer record.
A future Quire 9 reconstruction should therefore not depend on fold geometry alone.
It should ask whether numbering, folds, paint contact, image continuity and physical handling converge.
What Would Strengthen the Alternative-Configuration Model?
- Independent conservation confirmation that the knife cuts were specifically positioned for the proposed alternative integration.
- A quire-mark placement model showing the mark is substantially more natural under that configuration than under alternatives.
- Paint-transfer or contact evidence compatible with the proposed sequence.
- Visual or textual continuity that improves under the same reconstruction.
- A physical handling model showing why the final integration changed.
- Additional erased or altered numbering consistent with the transition.
What Would Weaken It?
- Evidence that the knife cuts served another preparation purpose unrelated to the proposed fold.
- A better explanation for the quire-mark position under the present configuration.
- Contact-transfer evidence incompatible with the alternative arrangement.
- Palaeographic evidence showing the quire mark was added only after the final fold was already established.
- A different physical reconstruction explaining all observations with fewer assumptions.
What Quire 9 Does Not Prove
- It does not prove the unused prepared fold was ever sewn.
- It does not prove a complete earlier binding used that crease.
- It does not prove why the final configuration changed.
- It does not identify who changed it.
- It does not date the change exactly.
- It does not prove the alternative physical configuration was the author’s conceptual reading order.
- It does not translate the astronomical/cosmological diagrams.
- It does not prove that every other foldout underwent comparable reconfiguration.
What It Does Give Us
- A quire mark that conflicts with the present geometry.
- An alternative fold deliberately prepared with knife cuts.
- Conservation evidence that the preparation was never used for sewing.
- A foliation layer consistent with the present/later configuration.
- A plausible sequence from prepared plan to different integration.
- An unresolved erased folio number worth further study.
- A strong demonstration that manuscript planning can leave physical traces even when the plan was never executed.
Primary School: Prepared Is Not Finished
Take a sheet of paper and punch two holes where you plan to bind it.
Then change your mind and bind it somewhere else.
A future researcher sees both sets of evidence.
The unused holes show your first plan.
They do not prove the book was ever actually bound there.
That is the corrected Quire 9 problem.
Secondary School: Build Three Histories
Compare three models.
- Model A: present configuration was always intended.
- Model B: alternative configuration was prepared but abandoned before sewing.
- Model C: alternative configuration was actually bound and later changed.
Now score each against:
- knife cuts;
- absence of sewing wear in those cuts;
- quire-mark position;
- folio-number position;
- visual continuity;
- contact-transfer evidence.
Students learn why a new observation can reduce one model without eliminating the whole historical question.
JC and Adult Readers: Treat Production as a State Graph
Represent states rather than one narrative.
- Sheet geometry A prepared.
- Quire mark added.
- Sheet geometry B integrated.
- Foliation added.
- Later binding/custody states follow.
Then attach confidence to each transition.
This prevents one early mistaken observation—“old stitch holes”—from forcing the entire graph into a false certainty.
Reader Checklist: Before You Say Quire 9 Was Rebound
- Are the marks being cited actual sewing holes or preparation cuts?
- Were they ever used by thread?
- Do they match known sewing stations?
- Where does the quire mark sit under each fold model?
- Where do folio numbers sit?
- Could the alternative fold represent a plan rather than a completed binding?
- Does contact-transfer evidence support the same configuration?
- Does visual continuity improve independently?
- Is the erased folio number relevant?
- What part of the sequence is known, strongly supported, plausible or merely possible?
Frequently Asked Questions
Were old sewing holes found in the alternative Quire 9 fold?
No. That older interpretation was corrected by direct conservation inspection in 2014. The marks are tiny knife cuts made in preparation for binding, but they were never used for sewing.
Does that mean the alternative configuration was never intended?
No. The deliberate preparation cuts support the idea that the alternative configuration was contemplated or prepared. The quire-mark position also fits it intriguingly.
Was Quire 9 definitely rebound?
Not on the basis of those cuts. An earlier completed binding remains possible, but the current evidence more securely supports a prepared alternative configuration followed by a different final integration.
Why do the folio numbers matter?
The folio numbers fit the later/current configuration, while the quire mark fits the alternative prepared geometry better. That supports distinct organisational moments.
Does the correction weaken the wider Voynich page-order case?
No. The manuscript has several independent order anomalies, including mixed herbal bifolia, missing leaves, Quire 8, pharmaceutical bifolia and numbering evidence. It specifically narrows what Quire 9’s knife cuts can prove.
Research Foundations
- René Zandbergen — Special Topics: Origin of the Manuscript, especially the 2014 conservation correction to the Quire 9 preparation cuts and the tentative production reconstruction.
- René Zandbergen — Quire 9, folio-level documentation.
- Nick Pelling — Voynich Codicology, for the earlier Quire 9 reconstruction that motivated renewed physical inspection.
- The Binding Problem.
- The Contact-Transfer Problem.
The Final Idea
Quire 9 used to look like a story about rebinding.
The conservator’s knife-cut observation makes the story less dramatic.
And more interesting.
We may be looking at a plan that never became a completed binding.
A prepared fold.
A quire mark written for one geometry.
A final integration using another.
A later foliator numbering the configuration that survived.
The manuscript does not merely preserve what its makers completed. Sometimes it preserves the ghost of what they prepared and then chose not to do.