I couldn't type much via my cell-phone, but now I'm home. There are two camps on this, but my thoughts are that giving away too much in terms of how we spot Ruth forgeries, is probably not a great thing. It's good that some people have wonderful skills in this area and have learned a lot, but I'm not sure that detailing all we've learned is all that smart - this autograph sub-forum is loaded with people who sell forgeries, constantly probing us for clues on what they can get away with. Telegraphing such things to forgers, even if their forgery skills are poor, is not a great thing in my opinion.
You could argue that the other side of the coin is that buyers need to be educated. I will counter such an argument by saying that after reading this forum for years, I have seen very bright collectors miss the most obvious tells, and I don't see that changing. Forgers, on the other hand, seem much more interested in learning how to successfully pass fakes, than autograph collectors are willing to spend the time it takes to learn how to spot fakes. To sum up: when we give out a clue on how to spot a fake Ruth, the net benefit is to the forgers, not to Net54 forum members. Obviously, just my opinion.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
|