Help with 1865 Lincoln paper

If anyone has a opinion on this I would like to hear it. Color seamed right compared to other fakes but I’m not sure. Looking for someone who knows their stuff
Thanks for any comments

 

Paper is mighty clean.
Do they say how it was stored? You would think it would look more brittle with discoloration.

 

Oh, just realized you were looking for someone who knows their stuff. I know diddly about paper. The above was just my gut reaction.

 

@clutteredcloset49 surprisingly older paper would be white and not deteriorated

 

Here's one that was digitized by the Library of Congress. One thing I notice that is different is that the text on the back of the page can be seen through the front. I'm wondering if that indicates a different type of paper.

https://www.loc.gov/resource/lprbscsm.scsm1304/?r=-0.421,0.005,1.778,0.673,0

 

@Figtree3 thank you
It does show through in areas

 

Okay, thanks... I couldn't tell that in your pictures. (Good pictures, by the way.)

 

I wasn't aware of that. Thought there was too much acid in the pulp. Maybe that came later.

 

@clutteredcloset49 yes that is a later paper full use around 1880s

 

This is without doubt a reprint. The original was printed on what's known as rag paper, in fact the New York papers at the time were actually using British rag paper (made with linen not wood pulp) that was captured during the Civil War. Rag paper has little or no acid in it so the paper stays white and flexible for hundreds of years. I have papers from the 1700's that are still white and flexible because they were made from rags, not wood pulp which has a very high acidity level. This is what causes modern newspapers to turn yellow and brittle with age. How do you make paper from rags? The rags are washed by hand then placed in a closed vessel until they actually begin to rot. After the fiber in them is nearly destroyed they were pounded into pulp by using a hammer and mortar or by cylinder grinding in a circular wooden bowl. The pulp was then carefully spread into thin sheets of paper on drying racks. This is an overly-simplified explanation of a long process, if you want full details read this article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/...dred years ago rags,of a circular wooden bowl.

 

In photographs, the letter is very uneven and with defects, this happens when dirt is removed from the original in Photoshop.
In the middle of the 19th century, the text was typed from metal letters. As text in captions in engraving.

 

Almost certainly a repro. Here's a picture of genuine newspapers from 1861 (upper) and 1892 (lower). Notice that the 1861 paper is whiter: Ken is correct, rag paper stays white and flexible, wood pulp paper degrades because of acid & lignin in the pulp. Wood pulp came into greater and greater use after the Civil War. Note also the 'depth of impression' caused by the type sinking into the paper, which allows you to see the text from the other side as raised areas, best seen in raking light. This is more evident in the earlier paper, because the presses were cruder. A repro is likely to be a photolithograph, which will have NO depth of impression, because it's not a relief-printing method - though reproductions can be made from relief plates as well, it would be a more complicated and expensive project. But if it's totally flat, it's totally fake.

 

From Wikipedia:
The use of wood pulp and the invention of automatic paper machines in the late 18th- and early 19th-century contributed to paper's status as an inexpensive commodity in modern times.[1][11][12] While some of the earliest examples of paper made from wood pulp include works published by Jacob Christian Schäffer in 1765 and Matthias Koops in 1800,[1][13][14] large-scale wood paper production began in the 1840s with unique, simultaneous developments in mechanical pulping made by Friedrich Gottlob Keller in Germany[15] and by Charles Fenerty in Nova Scotia.[11] Chemical processes quickly followed, first with J. Roth's use of sulfurous acid to treat wood, then by Benjamin Tilghman's U.S. patent on the use of calcium bisulfite, Ca(HSO3)2, to pulp wood in 1867.[2] Almost a decade later, the first commercial sulfite pulp mill was built, in Sweden. It used magnesium as the counter ion and was based on work by Carl Daniel Ekman. By 1900, sulfite pulping had become the dominant means of producing wood pulp, surpassing mechanical pulping methods. The competing chemical pulping process, the sulfate, or kraft, process, was developed by Carl F. Dahl in 1879; the first kraft mill started, in Sweden, in 1890.[2] The invention of the recovery boiler, by G.H. Tomlinson in the early 1930s,[15] allowed kraft mills to recycle almost all of their pulping chemicals. This, along with the ability of the kraft process to accept a wider variety of types of wood and to produce stronger fibres,[16] made the kraft process the dominant pulping process, starting in the 1940s.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulp_(paper)

 

Somewhere I have a newspaper covering the Confederation of Canada in 1867. It's not the original, but a re-issue published for the centennial in 1967. It looks just like the original, but it's one hundred years later. I didn't research it, my sister did and she was told that an easy way to tell the difference is the pull marks along the bottom edge of the paper - little triangular tears made by the mechanism that progresses the paper through a modern printing press. These marks, she was told, are not found on papers as old as 1867.

It looks to me like your paper has those marks along the bottom edge: