There are two problems with your theory of modern forgery, I don't know if this has already been discussed.
1. As we know, forgers tend to pay very close attention to how originals behave. Typical for the period were corrections in writings on vellum, with words written next to them, crossings-out, additions, etc. This was especially true for texts that were obviously not written by someone skilled in high-end handwriting.
A ‘modern’ forger would have copied something like this to give the whole thing a sense of originality. These corrections are missing from the VMS, and potential buyers would also notice this.
In short: since Voynich was familiar with old texts, the few clear corrections ironically argue against a forgery, not for it.
2. If one follows Jorge Stolfi's retracer theory, which has now been proven in countless examples, the question arises as to how a modern forger could have managed to make the writing so faint that it is barely recognisable, only to then paint over it again and make mistakes in the process?
This is more than illogical.
But above all, why would they do it? Bleach out writing only to trace it again? Extremely unlikely. Faded writing would be much more interesting to a potential buyer.
Of course, one could say that he accidentally bleached it too much and then hastily painted over it. But if the retracer (in this case, the forger) could recognise the writing, i.e. trace it (which is evident), it would still have been a much better selling point as faded text than as illegible text. So that argument doesn't hold water either.
The peculiarities of the writing speak quite clearly against a ‘modern’ forgery.
1. As we know, forgers tend to pay very close attention to how originals behave. Typical for the period were corrections in writings on vellum, with words written next to them, crossings-out, additions, etc. This was especially true for texts that were obviously not written by someone skilled in high-end handwriting.
A ‘modern’ forger would have copied something like this to give the whole thing a sense of originality. These corrections are missing from the VMS, and potential buyers would also notice this.
In short: since Voynich was familiar with old texts, the few clear corrections ironically argue against a forgery, not for it.
2. If one follows Jorge Stolfi's retracer theory, which has now been proven in countless examples, the question arises as to how a modern forger could have managed to make the writing so faint that it is barely recognisable, only to then paint over it again and make mistakes in the process?
This is more than illogical.
But above all, why would they do it? Bleach out writing only to trace it again? Extremely unlikely. Faded writing would be much more interesting to a potential buyer.
Of course, one could say that he accidentally bleached it too much and then hastily painted over it. But if the retracer (in this case, the forger) could recognise the writing, i.e. trace it (which is evident), it would still have been a much better selling point as faded text than as illegible text. So that argument doesn't hold water either.
The peculiarities of the writing speak quite clearly against a ‘modern’ forgery.