1) What is your evidence that "they were considered such" by the "learned men"?
2) What is your evidence that they were allegedly "corrupt" manuscripts (ie. more "corrupt" than any other manuscripts, since ALL manuscripts have copyist errors)?
We have the words written by Erasmus on Vaticanus.
We have the words written by Theodore Beza on Codex Bezae. It was sitting in Cambridge by 1611.
Alexandrinus comes out better, at least in the Gospels, so it, and Washingtonianus, are not really important to the textual critics trying to foist corrupt texts.
The massive differences between these manuscripts prove their corruption.
John William Burgon explains that well, he actually looks at five mss.