Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Felbrigge.jpg

Felbrigge Psalter

 * Reason:The Felbrigge Psalter is the oldest book from England to have an embroidered bookbinding. The needlework on this mid-thirteenth century manuscript probably dates from the early fourteenth century, which puts it more than a century earlier than the next oldest embroidered binding to have survived.  Both the design and execution depicting the annunciation are exceptionally high quality.  Linen and gold on linen with later leather binding edge.
 * Articles this image appears in:Felbrigge Psalter
 * Creator:Anne de Felbrigge


 * Support as nominator Durova Charge! 06:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Absolutely brillant picture of a piece of history. The artifact age makes it even more of a treasure, because it could fall apart tomorrow, making this picture even more valuable. Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support How could any bibliophile not? faithless   (speak)  09:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure whether or not you can verify this is the actual shape of the book. It's clearly longer on the left-hand side than the right-hand side, perhaps suggesting the picture was taken from the left. While it's possible that a book of this age could be a somewhat irregular shape, if it's really a standard rectangular book shape, perhaps some perspective correction is in order? --jjron (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This image was a plate from a hundred-year-old study of historic embroidered books. So in all likelihood it's a digitized file of a chromolithograph and photographic distortion isn't an issue.  The study itself comments in a general sense that many of these rare books were subjected to badly done rebinding during the eighteenth and nineteenth century.  My best guess is that the irregular shape is the fault of an inferior craftsman who tried to preserve this book about 200 years ago.  Durova Charge! 17:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support per above discussion. Change to full support if we can get a verification that this really is the actual shape of the book (or if a better original is available per Jeff Dahl). --jjron (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose A modern photograph of the object would be more appropriate. To me, the odd shape looks like skew resulting from imperfect camera position when the original chromolithograph was done, and is a more likely explanation than bad bookbinding. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Chromolithography is not a photographic process, and this is a high quality public domain image. A modern photograph would be copyrighted.  Durova Charge! 18:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So the chromolithograph is a printing process, but how was the image prepared for printing? It appears to have been photographed in preparation for printing by chromolithography. Anyway, the original object is impressive, but a modern photograph (why couldn't a free version be made?) would be a better approach. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 06:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Color photography of this order did not exist a hundred years ago when this image was made. This is a 650-year-old book with a partially reworked binding approximately 200 years old.  As the two more recent examples show, minor irregularities in shape are normal for embroidered manuscript covers of such antiquity.  These things are made of cloth and leather.  Rare manuscripts of this sort are almost never made available to amateur photographers, except in a few instances where they are encased behind glass and subject to glare problems.  Durova Charge! 07:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is that this is analogous to a hand-colored b&w photo of an artifact which still exists. The coloring has been added artificially in a separate process, and we can't trust it to be an accurate reproduction. Hand-coloring might be OK when the image can't be reproduced, such as a historical event. But even though rare manuscripts may not be made available to amateur photographers, they are routinely digitized, posted on the internet, and there are many ways to claim them as PD. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Due to the age of this book, it would be one of the things that I, if I were at the British Museum, would not digitize. This isn't like any other object and the risk of damage from digitizing is too great. Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I examined a free picture of the Psalter and the quality is terrible. This chromolithograph is of far superior quality than any photograph. The artifact has deteriorated to the point where the cover is not very discernable. Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support and I'm a fan of irregularity - we can't buy this book from Amazon and photograph it. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 08:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)