[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I'm not debating any of the conclusions above, and am not an autograph expert of any kind, but it's always odd to me that people talk like there is only one type of Ruth signature that is legit. As to Ruth or anyone else, isn't it far more likely that signatures can change a significant amount from when someone is 20 years old to 40? I think of myself. I see signatures from 25 years ago and they really don't look a lot like my scribble today. And aren't there going to be examples where someone signed something quickly or maybe reached up into the stands to sign something or was walking down a street and their signature will look lousy just because of the circumstances. Just has always seemed really peculiar that people are confident enough to quickly view a signature and say it's off.

I just wish those much smarter than me when it comes to autographs would be more descriptive in their responses when they do not believe it is a valid signature. Just saying no without why, confuses me to no end.

I'd like to learn/understand the why with the reasoning as well..

Regards,

Butch Turner