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.
|