I've seen a copy of this for sale at an antiquarian book fair. It would be very easy to overlook, but up close you can see that there's definitely something very different about the texture compared to ink on paper.

I also agree that there's something kind of special about when it was produced because the ability to do this was so recent. (Although of course we have tapestries that depict images, even woven directly into the tapestry, going back centuries, so maybe we could imagine a lower-resolution equivalent having been made without programmable looms as an almost unimaginably labor-intensive effort before that!)