How it should be done.
 

Want to call an autograph fake and stand a chance of convincing someone?

Here's how it's done:

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=19791#more-19791

David, since no one else is responding to your post, I'll take the bait.

Are you being facetious, or do you really believe that Nash has made a valid point?;i.e-do you think that balls with spacing between the 'L' and 'G' and with fully-formed 'u's are more likely to be forgeries?

he said it stands a chance of convincing someone, he showed differences in autographs, comparing idiosyncracies. that can convince as opposed to just saying I know and 98% of the other people are stupid so just believe me.

That may be (and I agree with you), but I still want to know if David agrees with Nash regarding Gehrig autographs.

I was not being facetious at all. Agree or disagree, right or wrong, Nash presents an hypothesis that can be subjected to further test. That's the way it's done.

Do I agree? Not completely, but he may be on to something. Here's a genuine mid-late thirties Gehrig in which the "L" and the "G" do not touch, but, as in the genuine examples Nash shows, there is no final upstroke in the "u":

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...igandchild.jpg

So, it fulfills one of the criteria for "genuineness," as presented, but fails the other. Going through my files, I can't find a genuine Gehrig that violates both criteria.

Really? Going through YOUR files - I can.

JimStinson
 

I ...................LOVE that photo , 250 pound Giant , baseball superstar embracing a child that is having the "moment" of his/her life , Another reason why I embrace this hobby. MAGIC ....Thank you
__________________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

Yeah. Really.

I should be a bit more precise. There are many, many examples of mid-late thirties Gehrig signatures that violate both criteria.

Here are two:

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2.../gehrigISP.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...z/gehrigPC.jpg

These are examples of Gehrig's more careful signature. Nash is not talking about this signature, but rather his more rushed "ballpark" signature form.

I assumed someone with your excellent eye would have realized that.

If you want to discuss Nash's ideas, fine. If you want to act like a smug SOB, count me out.

Thanks, Jim. I love it, too. I actually purchased the photo from that child. A bit older, though.

That's not being more precise - that's changing your statement.

But, as long as you are in the mood to change your statements, how about 1920's? Any examples in your files from that decade that violate both criteria?

David, I counted you out long ago.

Change my statements? Do you really think I was unaware of the two examples I just posted, which are in my collection? I've owned the "To Mimmie" photo since I was 15--it's been my most prized possession for 46 years.

I thought you were expert enough to understand what was being discussed. Sorry I overestimated you.

In the twenties, Gehrig did not run his "L" and "G" together.

(I'm sure that was a trick question, Scott, 'cause anyone with your expertise would know that.)

Fine with me, Scott. As I said before, your opinion on Ruth, Gehrig, and other vintage Yankees is worth about as much as my opinion on T206s.

My question is who gives Nash all the info that he puts up. I know that it must come from other people that have a very good idea of what is and what's not. People that I am sure are respected on this site.

David, I'm certain you've never 'overestimated' anyone on this forum other than yourself.

As far as your "prized possessions" and what you've gleaned from them....nevermind.

Well, I guess that settles it, then.

Excellent work, Scott.

So, as I said before, I haven't found an example of a genuine Gehrig mid-thirties "ballpark" signature that violates both of Nash's criteria.

Has anyone an example to show?

Please stop for once

Am I the only one who laughed at the fact that David doesn't like "smug SOB's"??

Ken

David,

You've owned that Mimmie photo since you were 15? Holy balls!! What's the story behind it? Or had you already mentioned that in another thread?

If I was 15 and somehow found that in my collection, I...I don't even know what I would do. What a piece.

Graig

Hey, Graig... Don't you have better things to do today than read Net54? ;)

Gehrig had always been a hero of mine, and I really wanted his autograph. In those days, there were no dealers--and it wouldn't have mattered if there were, since I had no money. All the vintage autographs we had were obtained for free, by writing to the widows of the ballplayers, who would send checks, or check cuts. By that time (1966) though, Eleanor Gehrig was no longer responding. I decided to cast a wider net. I went back to Frank Graham's Lou Gehrig, a Quiet Hero, and looked for names. The book mentioned Pitzi Katz, a comedian who would go to Gehrig's home in 1939-40 to cheer him. I looked in the Manhattan phone book, and there he was. (How many Pitzi Katz's could there be?) I wrote to him, explaining how badly I wanted Gehrig's autograph, and asking if he had any signed item to spare. About a week later I received a phone call from his daughter, who told me that he had died. She asked to speak to my mother--to see if I really was a kid!--and then, a few days later I received the photo in the mail, with a beautiful letter. She told me that the photo was inscribed to her sister, who had also died. She asked that if I ever got another, would I lend the photo back to her, but "if not, keep it and I know it's in good hands." She was incredibly kind.

I was recently contacted by the woman's daughter, who saw the photo on line, and got in touch. My collection goes to me kids when I'm gone, but the photo will go back to the family.

Fabulous story. I love that she asked to speak to your mother. And it shows there were suspicions of scams even in those days.

Exactly what I was thinking :eek:

:D:D

You never miss an opportunity to show what an ass you are, do you, Richard? After all, one might think that you, as a long-time dealer, would have something substantive to add to the discussion of "Nash's criteria." One might think that, but one would be wrong.

Again? for once, stop the crap

Scott, if I am not mistaken. Nash at no time mentioned anything but baseball and was very specific about the years 36-39 nothing else.

Show me the baseballs and positive dates.

More than anything I am amazed that the child who was in this picture would sell it off as an adult. It is either sad that he needed the money that badly, or even sadder that he had nobody to pass this incredible snapshot in time on to. Please tell me there is a better ending to the story as to why this person sold off a family heirloom such as this.

Some people (a lot of people?) have no desire to keep objects the way we collectors do. I go to auctions all the time where family members are present and they're selling off albums full of family photos. Stuff like that just doesn't mean anything to them.