As with most other mss in the collection, there is a European pagination in western numerals on every page; there is also at least one other foliation, in Persian style on the top left hand corner. The Catalogue (Ashraf, 1967), pp. 9-11, lists the illustrations according to their folio number. In view of the doubt over the accuracy of the numbering, which has not been checked, the page numbers are used here.
Introduction: a lot of blank spaces are left for illuminated rubrics in small boxes of unusual shape (long vertical) as well as for headings in different inks, in imitation of the original Baysunghuri manuscript.The Satire on Mahmud (pp. 20-23) is 112 baits.
The illuminations are of excellent quality, equal to the calligraphy. Unusual finispiece of relatively large medallion (p. 1594).
The ms needs urgent restoration: although the text block, which was evidently falling out through the page and the margins have been fixed in the East, the glue which was used for this has yellowed and damages the transparent paper. It seems that the aggressive green which was used for lines in the frames ate the borders between the columns so that now some of the paintings (e.g. p. 853) are torn due to the green lines on the reverse side of the folio. The ms was remargined (pp. 512, 1340) and seriously trimmed (no catchwords in many cases).
Paintings: at least two artists worked on the illustrations. One had a very detailed style, not very attractive (small heads, up-turned noses), the second had bigger figures, more laconic and finished compositions and palette, brighter colours, more gold, like whole surfaces of sky (p. 855). Muhammad Ashraf, p. 11, considers that the paintings on ff. 427r, 428r, 606r, 691r, and 700v are of "inferior penmanship and retouched". He also considers that the double-page finis piece should come at the beginning of the manuscript. Owners' seals, f. 794r.
The paper: good quality, Oriental, hardly seen pontusos, generally good condition.
Binding: European 19th century with leather spine.
The catalogue, p. 10, identifies this as a "late 10th c. copy", i.e. 16th c. A.D.) ; there is a note on the verso of the final folio that the copy was made from an orginal dated 829/1425 and also giving the name of the (original) scribe. In fact, this date must refer to the date of the Baysunghur preface.It perhaps refers genuinely to the original copy from which this ms. was made, but is certainly not the date of the ms. itself, given the style of the paintings, illumination and calligraphy.