[Bpm0014]

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.

It’s off. Ruth’s autograph most certainly did change. If you look at one of his autographs from 1920 and compared it to an autograph from 1927 and compare it to an autograph from 1948 there are most certainly some changes. But the example shown here doesn’t fall within any of those parameters. Ruth actually took great pride in his autograph. For every 1000 authentic examples you will find MAYBE handful that were ‘rushed’. Handful meaning < 5.