Help on Ott Goudey
 

Hey guys Im not an autograph collector but I saw a cool card at the national and have no idea what dealer had it. It was a 1933 Goudey Mel Ott in pencil.

if you know who was selling it feel free to PM me. Thanks so much.

Peter

It's in the Huggins upcoming auction currently, can't do private sale, I've tried

shew there will be quite a line on bidders for that one

Unfortunately :( lol

I just found this thread. I don't post much on here, but I was the winner of the Huggins and Scott Ott 33 Goudey. I went a little overboard on the price, but I now have a matching pair!

Attachment 111624

Attachment 111625

Nice pickup, love the signed goudey 1933 cards. Are my eyes deceiving me, or is the overlap backwards on the "l" in Mel on the red back ground card, second card pictured. Did he patch some of the ink or is it just the scan?

The shading on the jersey makes it look that way, but it's definitely one stroke. I'll try to get a closer scan posted tomorrow.

Jason

Here's the match for the green pencil signed one:

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s...baker/OTTo.jpg

Here's a closer view of the signature. It still looks different on the scan, but it's a dark spot on his jersey that is giving it the illusion of a backstroke.

Like I said, my eyes could be deceiving me but it still seems like the tail end of the "l" in Mel in underneath the start of the "l". It must just be the scan, take a look at it under loupe and see which stroke is on top of which.

Interesting observation.
I agree that it appears the upstroke of the "L" is on top of the tail.
I think there are 2 possible very plausible explanations.
First, if you notice from the downstroke of the "e" to midway up the upstroke of the "L," the ink is significantly darker than the ink before or after. This ink heaviness could account for a lighter tail of the "L" to not appear to be on top. The second could be that the E to L transition was light when it was signed and either Ott, or the original grapher at the time, went over the area with more ink. This would mean the tail would ion fact be beneath. If it wasn't Ott, I think it would've had to have been the original grapher because the ink looks identical to the rest of the ink used. What are the odds that someone after the fact would be able to find ink that was an exact match to the original.

The main reason that I am intriguied by it, is that I have a hypothesis that somewhat regularly, the originally signer had to thicken or go back over the signature when using fountain pen specifically on cards, because of the way ink adhered to the surface. It's not necessarily a bad thing, just what they did to make it more presentable.... typically this is the kind of thing that an authenticator would look for, patching, retracing, and then rule it out though. It happened to me once on a card signed in the thirties that I was 99.9 percent certain of for many reasons, but it displayed similar patching. I have been looking at countless examples like this on 1930s signed cards for the last couple years.

Now that I look at it on my iPad which is better resolution than my computer, I can actually see the upstroke where the l is thickened after completing the signature. You can see the spot where it ends.