C.s.a. Fake?

Not too long ago, I was rooting around an estate collection and came across a block plate. I figured it was likely a New York Counterfeit but, I wanted to be sure. I bought a conterfeit labeled as such to compare and they seem different which leads me to believe the block is genuine? Any help would be appreciated. I'm a little stumped. The block appears to have thinner frame lines and longer cross bars on the "F".

Welcome to the forum Joseph.
I do believe that the short crossbars are an indication of a New York counterfeit.
For great insight into CSA stamps you should check out Dr. John Kimbrough's site. Here's his page on CSA fakes. It will give you the information you need.

http://www.jlkstamps.com/fakes/fakecsa.htm#fantasy

Thanks. Yeah I looked at that website. Looks to me like the block may be legit.

I don't have any problem with the lettering, but I'm surprised at the very white, very smooth paper - doesn't look old. What's the gum like?

looks like a modern computer printed replica,

Okka

The block is ungummed. The paper itself seems quite thin and in the glassine with it was a business card from a stamp guy Elmer B. Ray. It totally could be a modern computer printed replica. Hard to tell. Is there some detail of the paper that I might be able to tell the difference? What I've read is that the london was printed on thin white-woven hard surfaced paper. I'm not sure how to determine if the paper it is printed on is "thin hard surfaced". It looks woven under a magnifying lens.

If you have UV lamps, test the paper with both wave-lengths.

I only have a shortwave UV lamp which I have been using. I checked it against a known UV coil I have with a backdrop of modern printing paper. There is no UV response on the C.S.A. I also tried to take a picture of the paper grain.





Thanks for all the feedback. This is awesome help.

The early paper provided by the printer in England was very thin and translucent - you could see through it, and it has sort of a waxy feel. I have one I wondered about and I emailed Dr. Kimbrough who assured me the paper was authentic.
This paper was very high quality and used on the #6 printed in England on on the early #7 printed in Richmond Va. The later American supplied paper was much courser and opaque.

Here's mine, a #7 printed on the British paper. You can see the lines of the paper underneath through the stamp.

oh wow. Thanks. That helps a lot. I hadn't imagined the paper that thin. Looks fantastic. I tried that with my block and it doesn't look nearly as translucent. So they used that thin paper initially in Richman and then shifted over to a more coarse and opaque American paper. So this would leave me with an American paper Richman or still the pesky possibility of a fake?