aš-šaiḫ al-maqāriʾ

Just as the KFE of 1924 was prepared by the šaiḫ al-maqāriʾ, the New KFE of 1952 was pre­pared by the chief reader of Egypt. But because it was a genera­tion later, it is not al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād al-Mālikī (d. 22.1. 1939) anymore, but ʿAlī Muḥammad aḍ-Ḍabbāʿ(1304/1886-1380/1960).
Unlike before 1924, when al-Ḥaddād was the only ʿālim who signed the explanations after the qurʾānic text (which means that there wasn't really a committee: the other three stood just for the involve­ment of the Ministry of Educa­tion; they didn't know enough of the Qurʾān to help al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād al-Mālikī), aḍ-Ḍabbāʿ was assisted by ʿulamā'; it was not an Azhār-committee, but one of Azhari­tes, created by the Govern­ment Press adviced by the šaiḫ al-Azhar.
They ordered only three changes in the rasm, one gra­phical nicety,
114 changes in the sura title boxes, forty or so changes at the end of suras with un­voyelled con­sonants (mostly tanwin) and the beginning of the next (with is now the basmala ‒ unlike 1924 when the first word of the next sura was assumed to follow directly the last one of the pre­ceding sura),
and about 800 changed pauses.

1952 (left) like 1924 (right):

... and it was never reprinted. And hardly any Egyptian bought it.

It sold so badly that five year later Gotthelf Bergsträßer still could buy copies of the first print both for himself and for the Bavarian National Library.
Strange that the experts write again and again of THE King Fuʾād Edition,
although there are many, different ones ‒ different not only in size and binding, but in content.
The first one ‒ lets called it KFE Ia was printed in Giza because only the Egyptian Survey could make offset prints ‒ they had experience in the tech­nique because they pro­duced colour maps.
The second one ‒ KFE Ib ‒ was produced in Būlāq, since the Govern­ment Press had aquired offset presses.

There are changes on two pages ‒ both times: right the Giza print, left the first Būlāq print:

At least as important as seals/stamps instead of signa­tures is an added word.

Because there were no gaps between sorts as was typical in Būlāq prints, readers had assumed hand­written pages. The word "model" made clear that al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād al-Mālikī had "only" written a copy for the type setters.
In the third edition ‒ KFE Ic ‒ one more page was changed: the first page afer the qurʾānic text:

In the fourth edition ‒ KFE Id ‒ one more page was changed, the only change IN the qurʾānic text before 1952 (in the first line a (silent) nūn was added):

Let's resume:
all KFEs were Amīriyya editions,
the first one was printed 1924 in Giza
from 1925 to 1972 they were printed in Būlāq
from 1972 to 1975 print was in Imbaba.
All KFEs have 827 pages of qurʾānic text with 12 lines
+ 24 (or 22) pagi­nated back­matter pages + four unpagi­nated pages
(until 1952 24 pages, after the revolu­tion with­out the leaf mentioning King Fuʾād)
None of the KFEs has a title page, nor a title on the cover, nor on the spine,
they are all hardcover and octavo size (not excately the same)

All KFE-like editions by commercial Egyptian presses and forgein editions (except the Frommann edition) do have title pages, most of them have one con­tinuous pagination.
There was one minuature reprint of KFEI and at least two private editions + the 1955 Peking reprint; of KFEII there were many re-editions, many rearranged with 14 or 15 longer lines ‒ in many sizes, on thinner paper and with different covers ‒ from Bairut to Taschkent.
In Egypt all the time editions with 522, 525 (later 604) pages of qurʾānic text were more popular.

The changes of the second, third and fourth edition did not survive the big change of 1952, which had about 900 changes, but reverted in all things just mentioned ("dedication", seals, aṣl, extra nūn in allan) to the first print.
Most private and foreign reprints (and later ʿUṯnān Ṭaha) keep the silent nūn.

The Sanaʿāʾ Palimpsest

When I started to blog, I said that the times are exciting because of
old Arabic inscriptions being de­ciphered,
the Sanaʿāʾ fragments, esp. the S.P.,
and because we understand that manu­scripts belonging to different col­lections
once were one muṣḥaf.
One of the first who had access to the high-resolution and to the ultra-violett images of the S.P. made by Sergio Noja Noseda and Christian Robin was Asma Hilali. She was (one of) the first who published about them not on the basis of the UNESCO CD and the Bothmer/Puin black and white images.
She made two mistakes:
She only looked with her eyes, not with her brain.
But where the scriptio superior covers the scrip­tio inferior
one has to connected the visible parts assuming possible letter­forms,
one has to speculate in order to fill gaps ‒ knowing the quranic voca­bulary one has to try to put in as many letters as are fitting.
Because Asma Hilali lacks phan­tasy or abhors specula­tion she reads less than a third of what has been written.

And she mistakes a library signature, a collec­tion con­volute for a meaning­ful document.
As an introduction into the study of Islamic manu­scripts one should read Islamic-Awarness.org.
Please read 3. Ḥijāzī & Kufic Manu­scripts Of The Qur'ān From 1st Century Of Hijra Present In Various Collec­tions; in the first column you see up to seven "Designations" for parts of the same document.
for the Codex Ṣanʿāʾ I
Only if you look at the document as as a whole, you have a chance to make sense of the parts.
Not only did Asma Hilali only study 36 folios of the 81 folios of the surving fragments of the document, she did not sort out the four fragments that do not belong to it that are classified as parts of DAM 01-27.1
That Asma Hilali made these two essential mistakes, is not that bad.
At least she was quick.
But that she refused to learn, declined to revise her findings in light of what others had found out, is a sign of stupidity.
I know: Everybody is polite, just says that she is (overtly) cautious.
I say: She is blind, cowish, mad.
Everybody (Elisabeth, Mohsen, Behnam, Alba, Eléonore, and in the second row Marijn, Nicolai, Fran­ҫois) agree that both levels are part of a muṣḥaf. The quire structure is proof enough, the pages con­tinue where the page before had ended. Asma Ḥilali is alone in postu­lating "scribal exercises".
That dif­fe­rent scribes wrote different pages, is no a valid argu­ment against all being part of one muṣḥaf, because Fr. Deroche had found out, that that was common in the frist two cen­turies.
A positive reviewer, J.A. Gilcher, wrote about The Sanaa Palimp­sest The Trans­mission of the Qur'an in the First Cen­turies AH Oxford University Press 2017 wrote:

All Work in Progress mistakes, corrections, fragmented readings, its intended use written in a fragmentary fashion consisting of multiple sessions of teaching or dic­tation circle intended for experimental use in workshop-like circles, always destined to be destroyed, didactic techniques of a circle of teaching sessions,
for Hilali, the fact that the parchment was eventually used as a palimp­sest for later text is proof of its purpose from the beginning to be recycled in the future

Given the fact, that her base asumption is wrong, I see no point in going through the 4000 letters were her reading (or absence of reading) differs from that of others. I am sure that in over 98% she is wrong.
It would be nice to see the Documenta Coranica tome by Hadiya Gurt­mann once annouced by Cor­pus Corani­cum, to see how wrong she is. I can only speculate why Michael Marx waits with the pub­lication.
Here is an image of the back­side of the second folio of DAM 1.27.1

And here Hadiya Gurtmann's recon­struc­tion of the lower text (image taken from Fr. Deroche's Le Coran, une histoire plurielle : essai sur la formation du texte coranique, Paris, 2019 ‒ he got it from Michael Marx; Hadiya Gurtmann had worked at Corpus Corani­cum)

I say that A.H. is mad too, because she refuses to learn in the field of Koran prints, too.
In "her" conference the Egyptian librarians all the time spoke of "muṣḥaf al-malik Fuʾād", "muṣ­ḥaf al-Amīriyya", "muṣ­ḥaf al-ḥukūma", she alone refered to "muṣḥaf al-Qāhira" and "ṭabʿa al-Qāhira", al­though the first term is used for manu­scripts and the 1924 copy was printed in Giza, which belongs not even to the gover­norate of Cairo, not printed in al-Qāhira, not even in Cairo.

Above are Cairo editions shown during the conference.
In this blog I have shown many more ‒ especially Cairo editions of riwāya Warš because I find it remark­able that most experts take it for granted that a muṣḥaf contains Ḥafṣ, basta!

And this is the page at the end of the object of the conference
informing everybody willing to take note
that it was printed in Giza. And that's not all.
Not only that it is NOT a Cairo print,
it is not even a 1924 edition.
In 1924 the quranic text was printed,
but after that the backmatter had to be set, made into plates, and printed.
Then the book had to be bound.
By the time it was published, the year was 1925.
Therefore the first edition was embossed:

طبعة الحكومية المصرّية
        -- . --
    ١٣٤٣ هجرّية
                سـنة