Genuine Babe Ruth Autographs

[Frozen in Time]

As some of you know, I do not really collect many autographs (a few early Mantle’s and that’s it) but rather specialize in Type 1 Mantle photos. So I am only a lowly student of autographs. Nevertheless, I continue to be fascinated by the many discussions on this forum relating to the different sets of criteria that individuals use for authentication.

This is particularly true when it comes to Babe Ruth and the recent slew of high-grade single-signed baseballs that have appeared in major auctions over the last decade or so. In that context, I was quite interested in the articles that have appeared in Hauls of Shame recently by Peter J. Nash and in particular: Operation Bambino Part 111: The "Real-Ruths" vs The "Record-Breakers" that first appeared in Dec 21,2011.

In that article, Mr. Nash posted the series of photographs shown below.

According to the article, the left-hand autographs are all thought to be genuine and the right-hand column illustrate alleged autographs on the sweet-spots of eleven of the most valuable Ruth balls in the hobby.

The article goes on to say - "In his 2002 signature study of Ruth’s autograph published in Sports Collectors Digest Keurajian made some important observations about Ruth’s handwriting in his own illustration pitting genuine Ruth signatures against forgeries." "Keurajian noted:
”Notice how the forged Ruth’s are level and exhibit no variation in height. The forgeries are signed in a methodical and calculated way. This is evidence of a slow and heavy hand. Now the genuine Ruth signatures bounce up-and-down. Heights vary and flowing loops are evident. When positioned right next to each other the differences are striking. Sometimes the differences in height can be subtle but they are always present. The variation in height is typically much more prominent when Ruth penned his name to a baseball.”

In addition to these observations (and many others that have been posted by members on this forum), I noticed one striking difference between the genuine autos on the left and the alleged autos on the right. In 11 of the 13 genuine autographs on the left, the line crossing the t in Ruth either extents to the left of the letter u or covers it completely. By contrast, only 3 of the 11 alleged Ruth autos on the right have the crossing horizontal line of the letter t that fully covers the u in Ruth.

I am interested in what some of the more experienced autograph collectors on the board think of this. Is this a valid difference that is also seen on other known forgeries and might be added to the list of criteria used for the consideration of authenticity? Or is it merely a reflection of the differences between autographs on flat items vs a ball? Or, perhaps, a product of my imagination?

Thanks.

Craig

[David Atkatz]

It's certainly not your imagination, Craig. What you say--regarding the samples above--is true. But I think it will take the examination of many more exemplars before you can conclude that it's a general characteristic of Ruth's signature.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

It's certainly not your imagination, Craig. What you say--regarding the samples above--is true. But I think it will take the examination of many more exemplars before you can conclude that it's a general characteristic of Ruth's signature.

Thank you David!!

[mschwade]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

As some of you know, I do not really collect many autographs (a few early Mantle’s and that’s it) but rather specialize in Type 1 Mantle photos. So I am only a lowly student of autographs. Nevertheless, I continue to be fascinated by the many discussions on this forum relating to the different sets of criteria that individuals use for authentication.

This is particularly true when it comes to Babe Ruth and the recent slew of high-grade single-signed baseballs that have appeared in major auctions over the last decade or so. In that context, I was quite interested in the articles that have appeared in Hauls of Shame recently by Peter J. Nash and in particular: Operation Bambino Part 111: The "Real-Ruths" vs The "Record-Breakers" that first appeared in Dec 21,2011.

In that article, Mr. Nash posted the series of photographs shown below.

According to the article, the left-hand autographs are all thought to be genuine and the right-hand column illustrate alleged autographs on the sweet-spots of eleven of the most valuable Ruth balls in the hobby.

The article goes on to say - "In his 2002 signature study of Ruth’s autograph published in Sports Collectors Digest Keurajian made some important observations about Ruth’s handwriting in his own illustration pitting genuine Ruth signatures against forgeries." "Keurajian noted:
”Notice how the forged Ruth’s are level and exhibit no variation in height. The forgeries are signed in a methodical and calculated way. This is evidence of a slow and heavy hand. Now the genuine Ruth signatures bounce up-and-down. Heights vary and flowing loops are evident. When positioned right next to each other the differences are striking. Sometimes the differences in height can be subtle but they are always present. The variation in height is typically much more prominent when Ruth penned his name to a baseball.”

In addition to these observations (and many others that have been posted by members on this forum), I noticed one striking difference between the genuine autos on the left and the alleged autos on the right. In 11 of the 13 genuine autographs on the left, the line crossing the t in Ruth either extents to the left of the letter u or covers it completely. By contrast, only 3 of the 11 alleged Ruth autos on the right have the crossing horizontal line of the letter t that fully covers the u in Ruth.

I am interested in what some of the more experienced autograph collectors on the board think of this. Is this a valid difference that is also seen on other known forgeries and might be added to the list of criteria used for the consideration of authenticity? Or is it merely a reflection of the differences between autographs on flat items vs a ball? Or, perhaps, a product of my imagination?

Thanks.

Craig

Good obvervation Craig, and just went and checked my Ruth and it, too, covered the entire u. But, as you point out, mine is a flat so I am not sure if it holds water.

[Runscott]

There is another characteristic that is even more blatantly different between the 2 columns, and it involves the 'B' (and it's 11 out of 11)

[Frozen in Time]

Thanks Matt. Scott I think I see what you mean about the B's - very consistent in the alleged grouping.

[mschwade]

Originally Posted by Runscott

There is another characteristic that is even more blatantly different between the 2 columns, and it involves the 'B' (and it's 11 out of 11)

Wow, wasn't noticeable until you gave the hint and now is totally obvious. Glad to say mine checks out again

[BrandonG]

Can you really make a comparison from paper written signatures and baseballs? I'm not saying those aren't fake, but always wondered why some people would use authentic paper written signatures and compare them to baseballs. The writing method would seem substantially different.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by BrandonG

Can you really make a comparison from paper written signatures and baseballs? I'm not saying those aren't fake, but always wondered why some people would use authentic paper written signatures and compare them to baseballs. The writing method would seem substantially different.

I was thinking the same thing. Why no signed balls in the left column? Surely there have to be some verified exemplars on balls.

Also, I could be mistaken, but it appears some of the images of the balls on the right have been "flattened," which could lead to further distortion.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by BrandonG

Can you really make a comparison from paper written signatures and baseballs? I'm not saying those aren't fake, but always wondered why some people would use authentic paper written signatures and compare them to baseballs. The writing method would seem substantially different.

It isn't substantially different at all. One's handwriting is one's handwriting. And the amazing thing is that it is independent of the set of muscles being used.

As a research physicist and professor, I have spent the largest portion of my life writing on blackboards, using my arm and shoulder muscles, rather than my hand and wrist muscles. Yet my large writing on the board is identical to my small writing on paper--and this holds true for all I have seen. The characteristics that define one's handwriting, are, as we physicists would say, invariant.

[Mr. Zipper]

Looking at the right column, 5th up from the bottom.

The e on Babe is connected to Ruth.

I am not stating it's certainly an authentic example, but that seems like a highly unlikely choice for a forger to make -- sign the first and last name in one continuous line. In my experience, connections like his happen when one is signing quickly.

[prewarsports]

The problem is that ALL the autographs on the left are signed on paper and ALL the autographs on the right are signed on Baseballs. The way one signs a flat piece of paper at a desk is so much different than the way one signs a small 8 inch sphere while standing up.

I have thought this for a while, everyone jumps all over all the signed Ruth balls and claims that a huge percentage of the certified examples are forgeries and they use signed documents as proof. Its Apples and Oranges, or more like lettuce and Watermelons in difference. You dont even hold a pen the same way when signing these two surfaces, if you dont believe me try it. And steel tip fountain pens dig into the soft surface of a baseball if you push too hard and DONT have a more vertical stroke so everything has to change in order to sign the Baseball.

I have no skin in the game, I have never owned a Ruth single signed baseball for this very fear and unless I stumble on one from a players estate or something I probably never will.

I would just much rather see comparisons from team signed Balls with Ruth signatures (In which context helps prove authenticity) compared to the singles than paper v. Signed Baseballs but hey, what do I know, I am not a "professional".

[David Atkatz]

There is no characteristic difference between a person's signature on a baseball, and on a flat.
The pen is held in the same way--just look at photos of Ruth or Gehrig signing baseballs, and signing their contracts.
The baseball is rotated as the person signs, so that the pen always makes contact at the same level--just like on a flat.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

It isn't substantially different at all. One's handwriting is one's handwriting. And the amazing thing is that it is independent of the set of muscles being used.

As a research physicist and professor, I have spent the largest portion of my life writing on blackboards, using my arm and shoulder muscles, rather than my hand and wrist muscles. Yet my large writing on the board is identical to my small writing on paper--and this holds true for all I have seen. The characteristics that define one's handwriting, are, as we physicists would say, invariant.

But couldn't some individuals develop different habits writing on a sphere, than on a flat surface? For instance, maybe Ruth just happens to sign the 'B' in 'Babe' more vertically on a baseball. It's the first letter in his signature and he's just managed to get the ball gripped and the pen ready, so maybe that one line - the first - in his signature, is a little different when written on a ball? This wouldn't have to be true for all people, but possibly for some. I'm just throwing that out there because the left line in all 11 of the 'B's in the signatures on the right are more vertical than the ones on the left.

In any event, it would be interesting to see if the 'B' in any of your baseball-signed Ruths that we know are real, are also more vertical.

[David Atkatz]

I suppose it could be possible, Scott--although I highly doubt it.
I'll check out all the genuine Ruth-signed balls I can find.

[JimStinson]

If one is to rely strictly on things like "slant", "Formation", etc. etc. in determining an autograph's authenticity. You'll likely succeed in avoiding the crude, average to slightly above average forgers on the ladder.

The especially talented ones have NAILED the above mentioned characteristics because they are ...to quote Mick Jagger "Practiced at the art of deception".

Master counterfeiters whos deception is to produce fake currency can draw a twenty dollar bill FREEHAND is it not then conceivable that someone can produce an exact replica of a BABE RUTH autograph or anyone else's using known examples ?

In the book "The Art of Making Money" the story of a master counterfeiter ..I quote
"Art Williams. took to crime almost immediately, starting with petty theft before graduating to robbing drug dealers. Eventually a man nicknamed "DaVinci" taught him the centuries-old art of counterfeiting. After a stint in jail, Williams emerged to discover that the Treasury Department had issued the most secure hundred-dollar bill ever created: the 1996 New Note. Williams spent months trying to defeat various security features before arriving at a bill so perfect that even law enforcement had difficulty distinguishing it from the real thing. Williams went on to print millions in counterfeit bills"

My point being that there should be other factors at play in determining an autograph's authenticity than just what it LOOKS like. Subtle things that take years to learn because the REALLY, REALLY talented elite are not cranking out Rube Marquards, George Kellys or even Thurman Munson's or Roger Maris. They are doing SINGLE SIGNED mint to near perfect sweet spot signed baseballs of Ruth, Gehrig, Mathewson and the like that upon completion are going to command 6 figures or more.
______________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by JimStinson

My point being that there should be other factors at play in determining an autograph's authenticity than just what it LOOKS like. Subtle things that take years to learn because the REALLY, REALLY talented elite are not cranking out Rube Marquards, George Kellys or even Thurman Munson's or Roger Maris. They are doing SINGLE SIGNED mint to near perfect sweet spot signed baseballs of Ruth, Gehrig, Mathewson and the like that upon completion are going to command 6 figures or more.
______________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

Of course. But when comparing those two columns, the slant of the 'B' was consistent, and consistently different between columns. Unfortunately that doesn't assure me that ALL of the ones on the right or bad, or that ALL of the ones on the left are good. Because of all those other things that you need to look at in a signature, I reduce risk by purchasing primarily hand-written letters, and not the $10,000+ ones. I also feel very comfortable purchasing autographs from you, just have been too cheap to win any so far.

The single-signed Ruth balls make me cringe, mainly because I know that no matter how good they look, I personally would never be certain; thus, I won't buy one, even if ALL the experts said it was good. Are there any single-signed Ruth balls that any of you feel even 98% comfortable are real?

Same for Mantle, DiMaggio and Williams - single-signed photos and balls are forger-fodder.

[JimStinson]

just based on personal experience I can remember a day when everyone in the room at a card show was selling cards and every single "walk in" that had autographs was aimed in my direction.

So I've looked at alot of autographs over the years as well as bought some good sized collections and can say that single signed balls of older players in ANY condition were rarely offered and I was NEVER in my life offered a pristine nr mint single signed Babe Ruth ball.

I've seen some nice ones maybe even approaching a strong 9 , but they are few and far between. But that was at a time that it took a really, really nice single signed Babe Ruth ball to break 5K. When the first Ruth ball broke 10K at auction we were astonished.

Since then well.....Where did all the perfect 10's come from ? Were they hiding them from us ? were they lost in the attic ?
To be kept in that type of condition they were obviously well taken care of and highly thought of as treasured family heirlooms with a paper trail a mile long. I mean they would have to be SOMEWHERE for almost 70 years
______________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by JimStinson

If one is to rely strictly on things like "slant", "Formation", etc. etc. in determining an autograph's authenticity. You'll likely succeed in avoiding the crude, average to slightly above average forgers on the ladder.

The especially talented ones have NAILED the above mentioned characteristics because they are ...to quote Mick Jagger "Practiced at the art of deception".

Master counterfeiters whos deception is to produce fake currency can draw a twenty dollar bill FREEHAND is it not then conceivable that someone can produce an exact replica of a BABE RUTH autograph or anyone else's using known examples ?

In the book "The Art of Making Money" the story of a master counterfeiter ..I quote
"Art Williams. took to crime almost immediately, starting with petty theft before graduating to robbing drug dealers. Eventually a man nicknamed "DaVinci" taught him the centuries-old art of counterfeiting. After a stint in jail, Williams emerged to discover that the Treasury Department had issued the most secure hundred-dollar bill ever created: the 1996 New Note. Williams spent months trying to defeat various security features before arriving at a bill so perfect that even law enforcement had difficulty distinguishing it from the real thing. Williams went on to print millions in counterfeit bills"

My point being that there should be other factors at play in determining an autograph's authenticity than just what it LOOKS like. Subtle things that take years to learn because the REALLY, REALLY talented elite are not cranking out Rube Marquards, George Kellys or even Thurman Munson's or Roger Maris. They are doing SINGLE SIGNED mint to near perfect sweet spot signed baseballs of Ruth, Gehrig, Mathewson and the like that upon completion are going to command 6 figures or more.
______________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

Hi Jim. I don't know you, but based on the glowing comments from other members of the forum, I realize that you are one of the most experienced and respected autograph experts around. In the article by Peter Nash that I quoted when I started this thread it also mentioned: "In our two previous installments we reported that in regard to the eleven record-breaking balls included in our illustration, expert Ron Keurajian stated there was, ”not one (he) would feel comfortable in pronouncing as genuine.” We also noticed that the many high-grade Ruth balls sold appeared to have been executed in multiple hands."

I was just curious (and I hope that this not inappropriate to ask) if there are any other factors (aside from the way they look) that would lead you to question the authenticity of any of the 11 Ruth balls in the right-hand column?

Thank you.

Craig

[ss]

"There is no characteristic difference between a person's signature on a baseball, and on a flat.
The pen is held in the same way--just look at photos of Ruth or Gehrig signing baseballs, and signing their contracts.
The baseball is rotated as the person signs, so that the pen always makes contact at the same level--just like on a flat."


I think it's common sense that we sign a baseball differently than we sign a flat piece of paper. Pick up a ball and try it; it's absolutely certain. Maybe more so for some than others, but definitely different.

[JimStinson]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

Hi Jim. I don't know you, but based on the glowing comments from other members of the forum, I realize that you are one of the most experienced and respected autograph experts around. In the article by Peter Nash that I quoted when I started this thread it also mentioned: "In our two previous installments we reported that in regard to the eleven record-breaking balls included in our illustration, expert Ron Keurajian stated there was, ”not one (he) would feel comfortable in pronouncing as genuine.” We also noticed that the many high-grade Ruth balls sold appeared to have been executed in multiple hands."

I was just curious (and I hope that this not inappropriate to ask) if there are any other factors (aside from the way they look) that would lead you to question the authenticity of any of the 11 Ruth balls in the right-hand column?

Thank you.

Craig

Craig,
there is really no concrete answer to your question BUT to use an analogy unrelated to autographs if you and I were antique car dealers and someone rolled onto the lot one day with a PERFECT model T, not a ding a scratch, All original PERFECT like it just came off the assembly line. Wouldn't we FIRST be amazed and then want to know how this miracle came to be ?

But then if we started seeing one right after another rolling on the lot after never having seen anything remotely CLOSE prior to the first one ...I think we would begin to ask ALOT of questions and begin to attempt to connect the dots. Make sense ?
__________________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by JimStinson

Craig,
there is really no concrete answer to your question BUT to use an analogy unrelated to autographs if you and I were antique car dealers and someone rolled onto the lot one day with a PERFECT model T, not a ding a scratch, All original PERFECT like it just came off the assembly line. Wouldn't we FIRST be amazed and then want to know how this miracle came to be ?

But then if we started seeing one right after another rolling on the lot after never having seen anything remotely CLOSE prior to the first one ...I think we would begin to ask ALOT of questions and begin to attempt to connect the dots. Make sense ?
__________________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

Yes, it absolutely does. Thank you Jim.

[prewarsports]

David

If what you say is correct about signing a baseball being exactly the same as a flat surface then why are there literally hundreds of pre-war players who would print their names on baseballs and not even attempt a "signature" or at least the signatures on baseballs are dramitacally different than on paper? If it was "exactly the same" why wouldn't they sign their names the way they did on paper?

EDITED THE REST OF WHAT I WROTE, NOT WORTH IT.

[David Atkatz]

Hundreds? Methinks you exaggerate. (By about two orders of magnitude.)
I have no idea why a few printed. And neither do you.
There's been a lot of talk that signatures are different on balls. But no one has shown an example of how a particular signer's signature differs--in a consistent way--between flats and baseballs.
There's a reason for that.
It doesn't.

[prewarsports]

Christy Mathewson signed baseballs different than paper

Hugh Jennings signed a baseball different depending on the day of the week. Half the time he printed his name.

Ever seen Earl Hamiltons signature on anything? I've owned 3 on Baseballs and 5 on paper. He had a nice signature when he signed on paper and he printed his name on Baseballs.

I have also included some scans of others. Look at them.

Ever seen a Bressler like that on paper?

Eddie Collins signed differently early in his career on baseballs, Probably because its hard to sign a baseball.

Bender didn't always sign like that on Baseballs or paper.

Why did Paddy Livingston print his name, thats not what his signature looks like.

etc. etc. I could come up with 100 in a few days if I felt it was worth my time or it would make a bit of difference.

I never said Ruth "Consistantly" signed Baseballs different than paper, I only say that the factor DOES EXIST so why compare ALL paper autographs to ALL Baseball signed autographs, thats it!

Not going to bother taking this any further. "Methinks" it wouldn't matter anyways so why waste my time. I feel that way a lot on this forum.

Have a nice debate guys!

[ss]

Actually, it was hundreds. This is silly. Pick up a ball, sign it, and look at the difference.

[Runscott]

Since we are talking about Ruth, why not just compare some real paper sigs to some real ball sigs? Surely all the Ruth experts on this forum can come up with 3-4 real ones of each?

With thousands of Ruth signatures out there, each going for thousands, if they can't come up with 3-4 of each, the 'forged Ruth' problem is even more serious than I thought.

[BrandonG]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Since we are talking about Ruth, why not just compare some real paper sigs to some real ball sigs? Surely all the Ruth experts on this forum can come up with 3-4 real ones of each?

With thousands of Ruth signatures out there, each going for thousands, if they can't come up with 3-4 of each, the 'forged Ruth' problem is even more serious than I thought.

+1 (plus now I'm nervous about my ball)

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by ss

Actually, it was hundreds. This is silly. Pick up a ball, sign it, and look at the difference.

I have.
There's no difference.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Christy Mathewson signed baseballs different than paper

Did he now? How many genuinely Mathewson baseballs are there?

Ever seen Earl Hamiltons signature on anything? I've owned 3 on Baseballs and 5 on paper. He had a nice signature when he signed on paper and he printed his name on Baseballs.

So we don't know how is signature would differ--if at all--when actually signing a baseball.

I have also included some scans of others. Look at them.

I have. You've shown scans of signed baseballs. You've shown no comparisons of signature differences between flats and balls.

Not going to bother taking this any further. "Methinks" it wouldn't matter anyways so why waste my time. I feel that way a lot on this forum.

What's wrong? Someone disagrees with you? Present some compelling evidence, and you'll convince people. Arguments like "the fact that some printed their names proves that signatures on balls and flats differ" won't cut it.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Since we are talking about Ruth, why not just compare some real paper sigs to some real ball sigs? Surely all the Ruth experts on this forum can come up with 3-4 real ones of each?

Yes, this should be done. But it's very important to compare signatures according to the (approximate) year signed. Ruth's signature changed over time--as do most people's--so it makes no sense to compare, say, a 1927-signed flat with a 1945- signed ball.

[BrandonG]

Going to rethink this one.

[BrandonG]

edited, sorry.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Yes, this should be done. But it's very important to compare signatures according to the (approximate) year signed. Ruth's signature changed over time--as do most people's--so it makes no sense to compare, say, a 1927-signed flat with a 1945- signed ball.

Okay, thanks. Another example of my ignorance regarding Ruth autographs, and why I have no business purchasing one. For the most part I stick with handwritten letters, but I have bought a few autographed photos and books. I'm out of my element there, and in some cases so were the authenticators who put their seal of approval on them

The thing that has amazed me more than anything else in the vintage sports collectibles hobby, is that most of the people who really have an eye for autographs, do not work for the authenticating services, and the photograph experts do not work for the authenticating services. We have at least ten people in each of those categories, right here on Net54, who could do a much better job (and do). I really wish that SGC, PSA, etc., would stick with baseball cards. They have no business trying to authenticate cabinet cards, photos or autographs.

The fact that the vintage card experts also do not work for the grading companies does not surprise me, as we would be unaffordable.

[David Atkatz]

Let's go back to the OP's photo. The question we are trying to answer is "were the baseballs on the right signed by Babe Ruth?" Let's investigate.

Perhaps it is wrong to compare signed baseballs with signed flats. But what can we learn here?

I think most would agree that the examples on the left--the signed flats--were executed by the same person. And there is compelling evidence that that person was Ruth. I think, too, that most would agree that the signatures on the right--the signed balls--were executed by the same person. They are consistent, one to the other. But they do differ--in a precise and very consistent way--with the signatures on the left. The only way the balls on the right could have been signed by Ruth is if the difference in medium--paper vs. baseballs--accounts for those very consistent differences.

I contend the difference in medium cannot account for the difference in signatures. It would help my argument, I admit, for me to provide examples of Ruth-signed balls that look just like Ruth-signed flats. When I return home--I'm out-of-town tonight--I will try to do just that.

Remember, though, that in order to argue that the balls were signed by Ruth, one must show that Ruth's signature always differed from those shown on the left, and in just the precise way we see here, when he signed a ball. Thus, I argue, the existence of just one example of a Ruth-signed ball agreeing with a Ruth-signed flat proves--at least to me--that he did not sign the balls shown here.

[ss]

Unless of course, you find one authentic signed flat that is consistent with the way he signatures on the right.

[mschwade]

Originally Posted by ss

Unless of course, you find one authentic signed flat that is consistent with the way he signatures on the right.

One? I'd want a lot more than that.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by ss

Unless of course, you find one authentic signed flat that is consistent with the way he signatures on the right.

Haven't seen one yet. Have you?

[ss]

Nope, but to have any validity we need to look just as hard - even if we don't believe it, do we not?

[cipollinaj]

I'm a newbie but would just like to offer an opinion on the examples shown in the beginning of this post.
The B in the autographs on the left side of page (done on a flat surface) are no different
to the B in the autographs on the right side (on baseball).
The B is not more vertical on the baseballs but is due to some foreshortening and change of viewing angle
when you photograph a curved object.
Think of a stick placed in the ground at an angle in front of you like "/"
when you start to walk around the stick it would slowly appear more vertical until it actually looks like this " l "
Look at the Babe Ruth autograph I picked from the left column and traced it onto a ball. The autograph is on top and the traced autograph on the ball is on bottom. You can see when looking at the red arrows that the B is more vertical in the photo of the baseball .
It is important to note also that the letters "th" in Ruth are now more vertical on the baseball because of the same distortion and can be seen in all the examples of baseballs shown
http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...1&d=1358810459
my .02 cents for what its worth

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by cipollinaj

I'm a newbie but would just like to offer an opinion on the examples shown in the beginning of this post.
The B in the autographs on the left side of page (done on a flat surface) are no different
to the B in the autographs on the right side (on baseball).
The B is not more vertical on the baseballs but is do to foreshortening
when you photograph a curved object.
Think of a stick placed in ground at angle in front of you like "/"
when you start to walk around the stick it would slowly appear more vertical until it actually looks like this " l "
Look at the Babe Ruth autograph I picked from the left column and traced it onto a ball. The autograph is on top and the traced autograph on the ball is on bottom. You can see when looking at the red arrows that the B is more vertical in the photo of the baseball and the two words have also narrowed, just like in all the examples of baseballs shown
http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...1&d=1358810459
my .02 cents for what its worth

Earlier in the thread I opined, "it appears some of the images of the balls on the right have been "flattened," which could lead to further distortion."

I think you described much more clearly what I was driving at.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by cipollinaj

I'm a newbie but would just like to offer an opinion on the examples shown in the beginning of this post.
The B in the autographs on the left side of page (done on a flat surface) are no different
to the B in the autographs on the right side (on baseball).
The B is not more vertical on the baseballs but is due to some foreshortening and change of viewing angle
when you photograph a curved object.
Think of a stick placed in the ground at an angle in front of you like "/"
when you start to walk around the stick it would slowly appear more vertical until it actually looks like this " l "
Look at the Babe Ruth autograph I picked from the left column and traced it onto a ball. The autograph is on top and the traced autograph on the ball is on bottom. You can see when looking at the red arrows that the B is more vertical in the photo of the baseball .
It is important to note also that the letters "th" in Ruth are now more vertical on the baseball because of the same distortion and can be seen in all the examples of baseballs shown
http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...1&d=1358810459
my .02 cents for what its worth

This explanation (and convincing visual demonstration) seems to make a lot of sense. So where does that leave us regarding consistent differences between the genuine autographs on the left and alleged autos on the right - aside from Jim's red flags regarding the sudden appearance of multiple, single-signed pristine balls with mint Ruth autos all within a relatively short time frame?

[CardsFan999]

General question on forgeries that I didn't see mentioned in this thread: Does it make a difference if the forger is left or right-handed, since Ruth and Gehrig were lefties and signed left-handed? I would think that it would be easier for a left-handed forger to get the slant correct and so forth. Are any of the known forgers of Ruth/Gehrig left-handed.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by CardsFan999

General question on forgeries that I didn't see mentioned in this thread: Does it make a difference if the forger is left or right-handed, since Ruth and Gehrig were lefties and signed left-handed? I would think that it would be easier for a left-handed forger to get the slant correct and so forth. Are any of the known forgers of Ruth/Gehrig left-handed.

Babe Ruth signed right handed.
Lou Gehrig signed right handed.

[CardsFan999]

I found photos of both signing right-handed. Very odd -- I've known a lot of lefties but never one that wrote right-handed. They must have been forced to do that in school which we no longer do.

I'd still like to know if forgers tend to be the same hand of the person that they're forging. I write left-handed and my writing slants to the right like the Ruth sigs at the beginning of this thread so perhaps it makes no difference whatsoever.

[JimStinson]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Babe Ruth signed right handed.
Lou Gehrig signed right handed.

Both Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig signed right handed, As did Ted Williams who was a NATURAL Right hander
_________________________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

[Scott Garner]

Not a HOF'er, but Johnny Vander Meer, the famous lefty hurler, signed autographs right handed as well, FWIW...

[39special]

Steve Carlton also signs right handed

[cipollinaj]

Didn't one reason have to do with inks in the past did not dry as fast as
they do today so most people learned to write right handed
not to smudge the ink.
Another reason , I am a lefty but years and years ago I had to learn right handed in Catholic school. I think , but not sure, it may have had to do
with some of the definitions of "sinister":

1. situated to the left side of something
2.of ill omen by reason of being on left
3. accompanied by or leading to disaster or unfavorable developments

I think I'll stick with the right hand just to be safe

[JimStinson]

Originally Posted by cipollinaj

Didn't one reason have to do with inks in the past did not dry as fast as
they do today so most people learned to write right handed
not to smudge the ink.
Another reason , I am a lefty but years and years ago I had to learn right handed in Catholic school. I think , but not sure, it may have had to do
with some of the definitions of "sinister":

1. situated to the left side of something
2.of ill omen by reason of being on left
3. accompanied by or leading to disaster or unfavorable developments

I think I'll stick with the right hand just to be safe

I think it was a case of back in the day there was a CORRECT way and incorrect way, In a teachers way of thinking and that if someone was writing with their left hand that was by the standards of the day INCORRECT.

Ted Williams is one I always found "unusual" in that he was a NATURAL right hander , amazing in that the greatest LEFT HANDED hitter EVER was actually a right handed person.

When Williams was asked about it once he said he had no idea WHY ...and said it was not something he learned. He said that when he was a young kid the first time he ever picked up a baseball bat he swung it lefthanded
_________________________
jim@stinsonsports.com