[Frozen in Time]

As some of you know, I do not really collect many autographs (a few early Mantle’s and that’s it) but rather specialize in Type 1 Mantle photos. So I am only a lowly student of autographs. Nevertheless, I continue to be fascinated by the many discussions on this forum relating to the different sets of criteria that individuals use for authentication.

This is particularly true when it comes to Babe Ruth and the recent slew of high-grade single-signed baseballs that have appeared in major auctions over the last decade or so. In that context, I was quite interested in the articles that have appeared in Hauls of Shame recently by Peter J. Nash and in particular: Operation Bambino Part 111: The "Real-Ruths" vs The "Record-Breakers" that first appeared in Dec 21,2011.

In that article, Mr. Nash posted the series of photographs shown below.

According to the article, the left-hand autographs are all thought to be genuine and the right-hand column illustrate alleged autographs on the sweet-spots of eleven of the most valuable Ruth balls in the hobby.

The article goes on to say - "In his 2002 signature study of Ruth’s autograph published in Sports Collectors Digest Keurajian made some important observations about Ruth’s handwriting in his own illustration pitting genuine Ruth signatures against forgeries." "Keurajian noted:
”Notice how the forged Ruth’s are level and exhibit no variation in height. The forgeries are signed in a methodical and calculated way. This is evidence of a slow and heavy hand. Now the genuine Ruth signatures bounce up-and-down. Heights vary and flowing loops are evident. When positioned right next to each other the differences are striking. Sometimes the differences in height can be subtle but they are always present. The variation in height is typically much more prominent when Ruth penned his name to a baseball.”

In addition to these observations (and many others that have been posted by members on this forum), I noticed one striking difference between the genuine autos on the left and the alleged autos on the right. In 11 of the 13 genuine autographs on the left, the line crossing the t in Ruth either extents to the left of the letter u or covers it completely. By contrast, only 3 of the 11 alleged Ruth autos on the right have the crossing horizontal line of the letter t that fully covers the u in Ruth.

I am interested in what some of the more experienced autograph collectors on the board think of this. Is this a valid difference that is also seen on other known forgeries and might be added to the list of criteria used for the consideration of authenticity? Or is it merely a reflection of the differences between autographs on flat items vs a ball? Or, perhaps, a product of my imagination?

Thanks.

Craig