tinker signed t206

[Archive]

Posted By: sean

I got this at a card show in st. louis back in 1989. Always looked good to me im not an ink expert so I cant tell if this could be signed with something made after joe died. I am pretty sure though that it isnt black sharpie as it may appear in the scan that way. The autograph matches well with genuine tinkers, I just dont wanna pay $200 to psa dna to find out its fake. any ideas?

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

As it's a signed baseball card, you can have it looked by SGC/JSA or PSA for a lot cheaper than $200. I don't follow the rates, but I thought the cost was like $20. Tinker is a rare autograph, as he died in 1948.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

If you're worried about rates, I sure can take it off your hands

[Archive]

Posted By: sean

ha! nice try james I have had bad luck with psa dna in the past so even if they only charge $20 I wouldnt want to do it. When I call them I usually get some one that has no clue whats going on. When I went to see them at a show in chicago, it was chaos. I had 2 movie autographs: orson welles and stan laurel (on seperate things). The lady said "orson who"? Then they charged me $100 and in 2 hours I got a paper back saying they were fake. I refrained form telling them that my dad got the stan laurel through the mail when he was alive and stan laurel did have someone else signing his autographs. So I asked " wheres the orson welles autograoh expert? I wanna soeak to him". They looked at me like I had lobsters crawling out of my ears. Enough about my psa rant. Just wanted to get some opinions on this. thanks!

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

Sean,

Where are you located?

James

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve M.

Here's my copy of the auto for comparison.

[Archive]

Posted By: sean

im in central illinois

[Archive]

Posted By: George Dreher

Sean, I wish it was real, but it doesn't look authentic based on the Tinker signatures I have seen over the years.

[Archive]

Posted By: sean

Its seems like it has the same characterisitics. The broken J. The way the T stretches across etc. I just dont know.

[Archive]

Posted By: T E

The T in Tinker on the card is formed totally differently than the T on the cut sig. I sign my name the same way, my first name being Tom (and my middle name is Evers, just for coincidink), as the cut sig. It is formed by two strokes. The T on the card is formed by one pen stroke.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve M.

Sean:

Maybe Paul M. will chime in. He has some experience here. In the meantime while your example does not appear the same as mine (which BTW is real) it does more resemble the bottom example taken from the SCD Baseball Autograph Handbook:

[Archive]

Posted By: sean

but it does seems like an abbreviated version of the t I see on other tinkers as he woulda had to shrink his signature a bit to get it on this card.

[Archive]

Posted By: T E

That second one does look similar. Sig changes over the years. hmmm

[Archive]

Posted By: quan

send to JSA/SGC and end the speculation?

[Archive]

Posted By: sean

sgc I had a similiar psa experience with. They were at a show and it was a bunch of 25 year olds standing around a computer. I hung back and watched and basically hwo they authenticated autographs was they got online and looked up examples. If thats experience than I should be making a fortune authenticating autographs

[Archive]

Posted By: George Dreher

Sean, here are some of the inconsistencies:

1. As T.E. mentioned, the most glaring is the one-stroke formation of the "T". Every Tinker signature I ever saw had a two-stroke formation.

2. The entire signature exhibits "feathering" which is typical of modern ink applied to vintage paper.

3. "o-e" link too short, "e" sits too far below the "o"


edited to remove three inconsistencies that the second example provided by Steve M. eliminated

[Archive]

Posted By: sean

Hi George,
I appreciate the feedback. Though I do hafta disagree in that in matches with the second tinker scan pretty good which is from the scd autograph collectors guide. Now the feathering on the other hand is an intersting point. Is it possible for that to have happened on some kinna ink made before 1948?
thanks
sean

[Archive]

Posted By: George Dreher

I had to edit my post because the early example eliminated some of the inconsistencies. Feathering occurs for example, when someone in the year 1980 takes a card from 1909 and applies a fountain pen and ink to the vintage aged paper surface.

<added>

Feathering will also occur when a signature is slowly, carefully rendered rather than signed at normal speed.

[Archive]

Posted By: sean

Hi George,

what I am wondering is can a pen from 1947 cause feathering on a 1909 card?

also could feathering be cause by an old person with an inconsistent signature i.e. cool papa bell's autographs in his last years?

[Archive]

Posted By: George Dreher

The age of the pen has nothing to do with feathering...it is signing on old paper that causes it. The feathering being caused by old paper absorbing an abnormal amount of the ink due to a breakdown in the composition of paper over time.

Yes, carefully slowly drawing a signature can cause feathering, as in old age, but this shouldn't be a factor in determining authenticity on yours because the example yours more closely matches in style is his signature as a young man. The top signature Steve M. provided is how he signed in later life.

[Archive]

Posted By: T E

Just send it out and have a third party look at it. Otherwise you will never know.

We all have bad experiences with authentication/grading, and those shows can be a zoo. But you will at some point have to accept a third party evaluation on the sig.