Interesting thread, I think I'm about to learn some stuff.
So as someone that doesn't do much with autographs, I'm seeing lots of differences between the two that would make me think it wasn't Hafey, but was someone that learned the same writing system.
No quotes around "chick"
placement of the dot over the I or over the C
both the K and y end on a down stroke on the card but upstroke on the photo
on the photo the h conects to the a but not on the card
on the card most of the loops are tighter, nearly closed but are more looped on the photo
The right stroke of the H is curved on one, but very straight on another.
And a few more too.
I know signatures can change with time, but some of these differences seem like something that would be a bit more constant. The general formation of the letters is the same, but most anyone that learned the same penmanship system would be fairly close.
So do signatures change that much, or is it just assumed it's real because it's not an expensive one? The differences are bigger than some of the things that make people think some Ruth sigs are fake (I don't usualy see anything obvious on many of those)
Steve B
|