Gehrig
 

Forget that it is slabbed. Do you guys like the Gehrig in Heritage?
https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c...ed-dailystatus

Looks quite different than any other I have ever seen.
But who am I to argue with Heritage??

I have seen that "style" of Gehrig's signature before and I have been told that it is the in person rushed style. I have never been a fan of it. I prefer his classic style signature.
But it must be good because PSA has certed it no matter what people think.

Hard to believe an expert is not familiar with this variant, as it is quite common.
It is a mid-1930s rushed, "ballpark" signature.
And it's perfectly genuine.

Genuine is genuine. Sometimes even PSA and Heritage get it right.

Yes, it is genuine. Gehrig employed this rushed style mostly in the 1937-38 seasons from my experience.

Not a fan of the shot it Richard. But in different places that I've looked I have seen that rushed signature. Still would be awesome to be able to buy a better one like the more classic style.

After I made my post I sent an email with the Gehrig image to someone with an opinion that I truly respect and who is highly revered on Net54 but who did not want his name used..
Here is his reply:
‎"Hi Rich, hope all is well. I don't like this one at all...no one seems to care anymore."

I have certainly seen many rushed sigs of Gehrig before, usually they are on scorecards, but not quite like that one.
Does anyone have an exemplar with that "L"?

Beat me to it.....Here is a similar one I used to own....

I'm certainly not an expert, though I have owned a rushed Gehrig. At first I thought, "rushed Gehrig." Spending a couple of seconds though it also occurred to me that I have never seen one with an "L" remotely like that.

I definitely wouldn't say that my not having seen one like it means it is it not legit, but it is definitely not like anything I have seen...

That is how I felt. Am tempted to bid when things are in slabs thinking they know better than me but then when I ask Stinson or you guys you almost always agree with me. thanks

Here's the card:

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...ps81rwaksa.jpg

And here are two more examples:

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...ps2n7nowsc.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...ps8kl9tgag.jpg

And here's one with no "L" at all! (pen skipped.)
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...tz/gehrig1.jpg

They are all a bit different from one another.

And they are all good.

Gee... I just heard from a "revered Net54 expert," too. And I have no doubt that those here hold his expertise in high regard.

He says the signature is good.

(Two can play the "un-named source" game.)

It was not a game. The man in question asks that his name not be used on Net54.
I honor his request and I think that the members here believe me.
Did your unnamed expert ask you to keep his name private?
And do you think I did not know that was exactly what you would say David?
But I actually did consult with that unnamed person and thought I should offer his opinion.
David, your hatred of me is so transparent.
How many years have you carried this grudge David?
Long, long time.
Many years, right David?
I am not going to engage in a back and forth with this "happy" guy.
I can spend my time on better things.
Go ahead David, the field is yours.
Show them the real you.

What I posted is true Richard.
I was emailed by a Net54 autograph expert. One who no longer posts, but is quite well-known--and well-respected--among the cognoscenti. He believes the autograph is genuine.
But...
My post was made tongue-in-cheek. Because citing un-named sources to promote your argument is total bullshit. And you have a long history of doing just that.
I have no doubt what you said is true. But if you can't use the name, then don't post. Doing otherwise just makes you sound ridiculous.
And desperate.

This is the reason they are "opinions"

I seem to recall unnamed sources on the TV news and printed in newspapers every single day in American history. I guess the Washington Post, NY Times and other news sources are ridiculous too. According to the Atkatz rules I guess those entities should not do that either.

As Lewis Carroll said, "Not the same thing a bit."
The NY Times, Washington Post, etc., are not using those sources to bolster an argument that they are putting forth.
They are reporting things that are happening.
(Not to mention that a single source is not enough. Nothing is reported unless corroborated.)

Very different from "I'm right. And here's proof. A respected source (Sorry. I can't say his name.) agrees with me."

Not the point, Ted.
The value of an opinion--if any--depends entirely on the knowledge and skill of the person giving it.
Offering an anonymous opinion to bolster an argument is self-defeating. It lends no credence, and only serves to cheapen it.

Personally I also think it is good. It just "looks right" overall. The "L" is a bit different but it is RUSHED AND on a small card signed sideways. Items shift.. people jerk away when they are moving fast/standing up... people get tired.
The fact that the "L" does not match 100 percent does not discount the rest of the autograph(parts). I think it it was forged or secretarial, the "L" would look different as well as the other parts.
As a whole, I think it looks good. But I am just a photo guy:)

ps: I was even thinking of bidding on this one

If we can get back to the autograph.

If it's a rushed signature, why does it look so labored? I agree it looks like what most rushed signatures look like including the ones David showed, but it doesn't look nearly as smooth as the others. Personally, I don't like it. Like others have said, opinions are opinions.

I don't think it's labored at all. (Just my opinion, though.)

Are there many fake "rushed" Gehrigs? I would figure that if you were going to do a fake Gehrig you would do a regular signature so it would be more facially acceptable. Kind of like I wouldn't expect there to be as many fake early Mantles (pre-half moons) as fake late ones. Or is this naivete on my part?

A little tougher to tell with pencil, but I agree I don’t think it looks labored either

I'm not an expert on Gehrig but am somewhat familiar with the rushed version. I was thinking this as well. Just seems unlikely that someone would A: have the nerve to forge on a Goudey card (I know it has happened with players though), B: Forge rushed/shortened signature style (less desirable) and C: Forge signature vertically (upside down).

But playing devils advocate those could also be attributed I suppose to a clever scammer trying to throw someone of with forging something that way.

Again, I'm not even giving an opinion on the signature. I'd suspect its a good rushed one but defer to people more knowledgeable on Gehrig. I too just thought it would be an odd way to forge a Gehrig, given the details.

I just think the letters in the last name look very elongated (up and down) compared to just about all other Gehrig signatures that I see. Even the versions you showed David. Something just looks off if you put it in a large group of signatures accepted as genuine.

Gehrig
 

I passed on it even though it's one of only 16 I need to complete my signed 33 Goudey set. It may be genuine, but I'd never be 100 percent certain and I'd rather hold out for a better example even if it is authentic.

Jason

For what its worth Id hate to see you miss out on such a rare item at what I am sure is a good price based on condition of autograph, but if David A says the autograph is good (not pretty) you can take it to the bank its good! David knows his Gehrig and I have always asked his advise before buying. He has save me a few times from a bad purchase. And BTW I still am looking for a Gehrig if anyone has one for sale...lol Happy hunting!!

Would you be willing to pay top dollar for one he authenticated, with no guarantee it would pass a TPG? I'm not knocking Dave here, but 9 times out of 10 I get the question if it would pass a TPG. Here's one that passed, and people are doubting it!

Jason made the right decision. If he would not be comfortable with it in his own gut, he should pass.

Mike

Absolutely. No one should buy an autograph he's not confident in.

From what I have seen over the years yes I would trust Dave over any TPG. I have asked him his opinion on things that PSA/JSA have said for a fee is "good" and he has pointed out what is wrong. But what the flip? Isnt he agreeing with PSA on this item? They have already said its "authentic" all Dave is doing is agree with them not sure what the issue is here..Have we forgot what we are talking about?

It's good to see there are still collectors who value independent opinions. For a while, I felt collectors could care less if an item was good or not, as long as a TPG would approve it. I've Also wanted items to be authentic so badly, I made excuses why the signature didn't look right. That never ended well, and I needed to take a step back for a while.

Many of the long time collectors I trade with do not have any cards authenticated. Their caveat is that the authenticators have never seen these players sign in person, so how can anyone be 100% sure. I guess this is why we must rely solely on opinions, as well as provenance.

I'm relatively new at collecting autographs, heck I haven't been alive as long as some have been collecting, but even I have the occasional head scratchers. More recently, it seems the TPGs have been overly cautious, failing items of common players who are still living, and actively signing ttm, only to ultimately pass them.

I'm pretty confident in an expensive card in a psa holder, however I do remember some 33 Ruth's that were sold that that good ole Peter Nash hurled some accusations at, and were sold right away. Usually if a card is raw, and I am not 100%, I will ask for a guarantee to pass a either psa or SGC. Other that that, I don't have the luxury, or want to bother, asking for an opinion from a friend as most of my trusted confidants now work at a TPG!