Quote:
Originally Posted by travrosty
but I will let the photos speak for themselves.
|
Hhhhmmmm, as I get older, and more wax builds up in the ear canal, it gets a little harder to hear the photos speak. However, in this case, they speak loudly enough that even my middle aged ears can hear what they are saying. Note: I"m only listening to these two sigs that Travis posted, not ANY others as they are not relevant to this particular discussion.
Perhaps I inferred too much from Travis' first post by inferring that he thinks the two Ruths are done by the same hand. If that's not what he was trying to get across, then my sincere apologies.
Let's "listen" to these photos for a few seconds:
What I hear is the following differences that to me are screaming, these two signatures are not in the same hand (for time purposes, I'm only focusing on the Ruth portion although the other portions have similar discrepancies)
1) The angle of the transition between the 1st and last names. Not even close.
2) The angle of the bottom of the R in comparison to the baseline of the rest of the UTH, not even close
3) The difference in the fatness and ovalness of the R between the 2 sigs
4) The crossstroke of the T between the two sigs. One is a relatively straight line that has a very short back to the left of the body of the T and the other one looks like a tracing of the top half of a football (in other words like the top half of an oval and has a much longer length of the back stroke to the left of the body of the T.
5) The elongation of the h. One looks like a hearty smile and the other looks like a token flattened smarting of the lips when one is feigning a smile.
Are these two signatures in the same hand?? (again, not concerned about ANY other Ruth examples, only these two that you chose to use as a comparison)