Talk:Vellum

message: the page for parchment says that vellum is derived from the latin for "calf," but here it gives the derivation from the latin for "pelt."
:Velius is Latin for pelt, but my (offline) etymological resources (primarily Chambers Dictionary of Etymology) state that Vellum derives from Middle French velin, from Old French vel or veel, for calf. In English, it first appears in print as velym about 1430, thence to velum by 1499, and finally to vellum in 1636. The Online Etymological Dictionary agrees with the link to velin, though it indicates that velin is Old French, not Middle French.
::And my copy of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary agrees with Middle French Velin, so I am changing the article. --Intelligence3 03:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  from the latin 

message: The first paragraph states that vellum was originally made from pig skin. The second paragraph states that it was originally made from calf skin. Obviously these are at odds. I have had difficulty locating an online source for either. Despite etymological roots that may tie to calf, obviously it could have been originally made from swine before calves became more common for the purpose, the name perhaps having come later.
:: it's hard to imagine there were enough calves around to supply the medieval demand - I think sheep & doubtless pigs also got involved. I think early Irish vellum (Book of Kells etc was from lambs, although i don't think the article says so   Johnbod 04:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: The article states without reference that vellum made from unborn calf skin is "still the preferred type for Torah scrolls today."  I'm not Jewish, nor do I have any knowledge of Kosher law, but it struck me as a possible misconception.  I've found no sources to back up the claim; rather, most sources seem only to indicate which part of the calf's skin is preferable.  Can anyone confirm or deny? --Dmagus 17:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torah scrolls 

message: The sentence "Large paper drawings require an additional step (tracing paper amenable to letting light pass through it, and hence is more error prone)" appears to be an unfinished thought.  It is unclear what additional step the author was referring to, and what the connection between light passing through and errors is.
Lriley47 (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "additional step"

message: It is rather unfortunate and unsurprising that only the obscure American drawing sizes are seen as worth mentioning. Most of the world uses ISO-sizes (A0, A1, A2 etc).
213.243.170.211 (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just chopped out that VLSI essay, along with the discussion of ANSI paper sizes. The remaining paragraph is still far from optimal: inaccurate, opaque, and unsupported by references. "Scaling a drawing," or measuring dimensions from the lines on it, was considered a poor practice exactly because of paper's lack of dimensional stability. Photo-reproduction applications requiring stability, such as circuit layout, were more likely to use Mylar or Rubylith than paper vellum. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Paper vellum

message: This section of the article leads off with the sentence: "There is some confusion about the relationship between the words vellum and parchment."  It then goes on to describe vellum in detail, but completely neglects to clarify the confusion between vellum and parchment.  If no clarification is to be offered, shouldn't this sentence be removed?  Or, more properly, shouldn't some clarification be given?  Thanks! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody seems clear that there is a consistent distinction, & if so, what it is. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Material and manufacture

message: I suggested, what the paper (fay from bois or chiffon) vellum, from the vellum el peau of baby-cow deadborn, whos is a sort of parchment.
--Jean-François Clet (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: er, sorry? Johnbod (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Separed the parchmen Vellum of the paper vellum

message: Regarding this diff: See here pages 96 and 99, where human skin is said to resemble pigskin, hardly to be mistaken for vellum. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthropodermic bibliopegy 

message: We have a picture which says this is a vellum document of the seventeenth century. Problem is, the EXACT SAME ILLUSTRATION is also used in the article on parchment, saying, this is a parchment document of the seventeenth century. Is it one or t'other? Can anyone tell?140.161.86.159 (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Essentially no one here has been able to produce an adequate referenced distinction, & its not clear there ever was one except for "quality". I'd have thought a mere deed was more likely to be parchment. Who added that pic; it wasn't there before? Johnbod (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration 

message: Both 'herse' and 'hearse' are used in the article.  Which is correct?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.62.213.237 (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no 'a'. It's fixed. Span (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Now that we've pretty much got the parchment/vellum distinction agreed (viz. that, in modern usage, there isn't an absolute distinction, but that "parchment" refers to all types of animal membrane used as a writing material; whereas "vellum" refers to a subset of finer quality), can I raise the issue of the four images currently illustrating the article – copied here for convenience. Because it seems to me that all four illustrate parchment, and not vellum.
Deeds, legal instruments, and other archival documents were invariably written on everyday parchment, not fine vellum. Magna Carta is a nice iconic lede image; but, in the vast amount of literature on the subject, most authorities refer to "parchment", as does our Wikipedia article. The portolan chart is a higher-quality item, but it's also on a large, heavy-duty sheet, and I'd certainly be inclined to call it parchment, not vellum. (The image originates from a Dutch source, where the material was described as "perkament": this was then translated into English as "vellum" – I would suggest incorrectly. In fact, in this particular case, as the sheet comprises a substantial part of the hide, it might be possible for an expert to determine the animal species without too much difficulty; but we would of course need a reliable source.) The natural science book is more borderline, but it's still a student's working textbook, and it looks more like "parchment" than "vellum" to me.
Can't we find a few images of high-quality presentation manuscripts that are more unequivocally written on vellum? The obvious thing would probably be an illuminated manuscript, but most of the images available on Commons (:c:Category:Illuminated manuscripts) understandably focus on the individual illuminations, rather than the support. Does anyone have any suggestions or thoughts?
GrindtXX (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to suggest that you find an appropriate example in a library, photograph it, and upload it to Wikipedia. A university librarian should be knowledgeable enough to direct you to a representative sample. — Anita5192 (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

text: I don't think I agree with your premise. What the membrane copies of UK legislation are still put on is invariably described as vellum. There are of course several MC MS, and a search shows it is not hard to find them called vellum , though the BL certainly describe this one as parchment.  I would think formal royal charters etc were more often than not on vellum.  There will be no real visual difference, but any late medieval illuminated ms of quality should be on "vellum". There's an issue with the rather different questions: 1) What is the best term for this material? and 2) What terms for this material are wrong?  Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images