The problem is that ALL the autographs on the left are signed on paper and ALL the autographs on the right are signed on Baseballs. The way one signs a flat piece of paper at a desk is so much different than the way one signs a small 8 inch sphere while standing up.
I have thought this for a while, everyone jumps all over all the signed Ruth balls and claims that a huge percentage of the certified examples are forgeries and they use signed documents as proof. Its Apples and Oranges, or more like lettuce and Watermelons in difference. You dont even hold a pen the same way when signing these two surfaces, if you dont believe me try it. And steel tip fountain pens dig into the soft surface of a baseball if you push too hard and DONT have a more vertical stroke so everything has to change in order to sign the Baseball.
I have no skin in the game, I have never owned a Ruth single signed baseball for this very fear and unless I stumble on one from a players estate or something I probably never will.
I would just much rather see comparisons from team signed Balls with Ruth signatures (In which context helps prove authenticity) compared to the singles than paper v. Signed Baseballs but hey, what do I know, I am not a "professional".
|