The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

It should be noted that the paper is of the correct time that we would expect. This should cast serious doubts on a fake proposal. Though I doubt it will..

As most forgeries are purposefully made with period materials, and forgers go to great lengths to obtain them, no, finding period correct paper does not at all cast doubts on a fake possibility. Even ancient bark, found in a cave, was used to forge MesoAmerican codices. Wood, ivory, paper, canvas, were all sourced by forgers.

But of course the materials are chosen by forgers based on the current state of the ability of the contemporary forensic sciences* to date and locate them. So, for instance, Voynich would have of course known the dating of the paper with the three hat watermark. This was already an area of scholarship widely known, and certainly by book dealers and collectors.

And Voynich knew paper, and sold much blank paper. Not sure if I mentioned this to you, but he is known to have sold antique paper to the famous engraver, McBey. McBey writes about this in his biography. He liked old paper. In fact, McBey compiled a collection of papers which illustrated the history of paper production, as a reference to date paper (this is why it is always good to have these conversations, because, because of it I just realized it may be possible to see the watermarks on McBey's art! Wonder if he used "Tres Cappelli" paper, ever?).

TLDR: No, finding period correct paper on a forgery by Voynich would not at all be a problem, we would expect it to be exactly what he would do.

* Which is why, I posit, the paper is the right age, but the parchment he chose for the Voynich was not. Voynich would have known the age of the paper; but without predicting C14 testing, he got the parchment wrong... wrong for the 1550 to 1650 intended (I propose) content; and wrong for his Bacon nonsense. Today, a forger would have their parchment radiocarbon dated... and so, of course, would have Voynich.