The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[Rafal]

as those reasons alone have led me to believe the Rohonc Codex is one of those old forgeries/fakes/hoaxes that were often convincing in the past, while actually not being even all that convincing in its own time. 

Everyone forgive me for bringing the Rohonc Codex here but there are actually several similarities to Voynich Manuscript.

So I indeed made my solution of Rohonc Codex using results of Kiraly and Tokai. You can check it here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I am 100% sure that the text there is meaningful. As for its date of creation I don't have such a strong opinion and generally don't have a horse in that race but I believe it's rather authentic.

There are actually 2 issues both with Rohonc and Voynich:
a) is the text meaningful or gibberish?
b) was it created in the 1400s (Voynich) and 1500s (Rohonc) or quite recently, shortly before its "discovery"

I believe these issues are independent and I hope that you would agree. Because actually many people made a mistake and saw them dependent.

Both Voynich and Rohonc raised a lot of enthusiasm when discovered and nobody initially considered them a fake. Several people tried to read them and failed. The initial theories failed - Voynich being a manuscript by Roger Bacon and Rohonc being some Hungarian nationalistic thing written in a form of Hungarian runes ( You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. )

So people started claiming they are fake - we cannot read them, they don't make sense, they are not the thing we expected them to be so they must be fake.
I would say it's a logical error.

The theory that Rohonc is fake and created by Sámuel Literáti Nemes in an old 19th century theory that nobody really questioned later. The guys who accepted it generally weren't the sharpest pencils in the box. For example they claimed that the script cannot make sense as it has over 800 unique symbols and nobody would be able to remember and use that much fluently. Somebody should really gift them a book in Chinese  

But as we said, having sense doesn't mean that something is genuine and vice versa. For example I am closest to opinion that VM is gibberish but is authentic. So it may be a called fake but you must add it's a medieval fake  

Both Rohonc and Voynich have some similarities in their histories:

Voynich:
- discovered in the 20th century
- imagery suggests 1400s
- carbon dating of vellum suggests 1400s
- there are some documents that seem to mention its existence before 20th century (Kircher correspondence, De Ricci census)
  but they theoretically could be forged or relate to another manuscript

Rohonc:
- discovered in the 19th century
- imagery suggests 1400-1600, to put it safely with wide margin
- watermark on paper suggests 1500s
- there is mention from library census in 1700s but it could relate to another manuscript

I would say Proto57 that you are quite "demanding". 
Imagery, used material and possible mentions are not enough for you.

Out of curiosity, if I may ask, do you treat all manuscripts with such cautiousness or Voynich and Rohonc are special?
And what convinces you (if it does) that stuff like Leningrad Codex ( You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ) is genuine?