Babe Ruth?

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by ss

Here's the a comparison of the 700 ticket next to a similar looking signature that comes from an extremely reliable source -- one of the few that I trust. I don't know if the open "a" and the hooked "h" really matter, but they are in both signatures. Also, can someone explain the "backwards a" to me. I don't see that at all. To my eye, the "a" starts exactly as you would expect.

Not even close.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Not even close.

Chris,

First, let me say how sorry I was to hear about the loss in your family. I hope with time that peace and happiness fully replace the sadness and grief that you are feeling now.

As a complete autograph novice, I continue to be confused by these recent Ruth threads. I have looked at all the HOS articles related to Ruth's autograph (as well as net54 threads) and even in those cases where the examples are thought by most to be authentic (legal documents, checks, some balls and photos with invariant and tractable provenance) I can still see clear differences in letter formation and size, slant, pressure, flow and spacing. I assume these are, in part, the result of how Ruth signed (rushed or careful), how the item signed was stabilized, the time window in Ruth's career when the signing occurred, pen or pencil, etc. Even when I look back on my own signature over the last 30 years or so I see huge variations not only over the entire span but even within the same year.

So my question is how can anyone be confident (based on the characteristics of the signature only) that a Ruth autograph (as an example) is authentic? I find it very hard to believe that whatever the characteristic or combination of characteristics thought to define an authentic Ruth auto would not break down the more 100% authentic Ruth autos that are examined. This combined with what Jim S. had posted about the remarkable ability of the master forgers that have invaded the Hobby underscores my question.

Thank you,

Craig

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Not even close.

Can you expand upon that?

[shelly]

I think before anyone say's not a chance it is written backwards. You might take a look through a Jewelers loop or high mang scope. We have a scientist on here he can take a look.

[David Atkatz]

If you look at the image with a jeweler's loupe, you'll see pixels.
Information can only be gleaned by looking at the actual item under magnification.

[collectbaseball]

I don't understand the backwards A either. Is it whole "abe" supposed to be backward or just the A?

[shelly]

Tha a in babe.

[Westsiders]

This may be a silly question...but what indication is there that the "a" is written backwards?

[ss]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Not even close.

Thanks Chris. Do you think the second exemplar is "not even close" to authentic, or just not a good comparison to the first exemplar (700 ticket)? What do others think?

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by ss

Thanks Chris. Do you think the second exemplar is "not even close" to authentic, or just not a good comparison to the first exemplar (700 ticket)? What do others think?

good luck getting an answer.

[ss]

Here's another extremely credible example of the Babe with the open "a" and the hooked "h". What do folks think?

[David Atkatz]

The "open a" and "hooked t" are meaningless. There are scores of authentic examples with one or both of those characteristics.

[Runscott]

I agree, David.

Here's an 'open a' Ruth. It is certified by JSA, NOT by PSA, and it's up in REA - lot 923. (no gotcha, so don't even mention that favorite Net54 catch-phrase)

What's your opinion, David?

[ss]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

The "open a" and "hooked t" are meaningless. There are scores of authentic examples with one or both of those characteristics.

I believe you are correct David. What I am trying figure out is whether we are correct -- not regarding the 700 ticket, but in general, regarding Ruth opinions. In other wors, if Chris had posted one of those REA Ruth's that has been pulled, or one of Nash's exemplars in his analysys of Ruth forgeries, and he used the same m.o. as he did with the ticket, would we have also disagreed in that case? We would have been wrong; and some of those look pretty good too. I wonder how the board would have responded.