Ted Williams Signed Checks

[slidekellyslide]

Are checks really the safest autographs in the hobby? Looking through my Hunt Auctions Ted Williams sale there are checks on pages 59-61 where the "T" in "Theodore" is clearly signed two totally different ways...did he have a secretary or one of his wives sign for him on checks?

[Splinte1941]

I'm not sure how many times this has to be addressed, but the only way a signature can be 100% authentic is if you saw the person physically sign the item, and even then a third party can raise doubts. I'm sure Ted signed the vast majority of those checks, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove he signed 100% of them. This is simple logic and common sense. Not trying to be a jerk, but it's a fairly easy concept.

[slidekellyslide]

Heh...I'm sorry I decided to tread the autograph waters.

[drc]

Contracts are relatively safe (I said relatively, get off my back), in part because the player himself has to sign the contract for it to be legal. Or, if it is signed by someone else, it has to be clearly noted that person was signing for the player. Tom Seaver wasn't going to risk not getting his $2 million by having his maid or brother sign his name. Both parties in the negotiations were going to make sure Tom himself wrote his name. Also signing someone else's name to a contract might be, if not probably is, illegal. You will occasionally see something like "Joe Blow, signing for Mr. Famous Movie Actor" with Joe Blow being Mr. Actors's agent, lawyer or such. But that's different than someone signing someone else's name straight.

In short, for a $2 million contract between the Reds and Tom Seaver, both sides know Tom has to signed that thing for it to be legally binding. This is why even today MLB contracts are signed in person in front of representatives from both sides. Just take a look at an old photo of a Babe Ruth or Mickey Mantle or Alex Rodriguez signing a contract and count the number of suits watching him press pen to paper. It's part show but it's mostly part making sure and documenting its his signature on that contract.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Heh...I'm sorry I decided to tread the autograph waters.

Dan,
Be forewarned, don't forget to bring your (flack)life jacket when you tread these autograph waters.

[drc]

Rudeness isn't an good quality in anyone, anywhere. No excuses. Not even being a member of the autograph forum.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Splinte1941

I'm not sure how many times this has to be addressed, but the only way a signature can be 100% authentic is if you saw the person physically sign the item, and even then a third party can raise doubts. I'm sure Ted signed the vast majority of those checks, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove he signed 100% of them. This is simple logic and common sense. Not trying to be a jerk, but it's a fairly easy concept.

Wow, and that's NOT trying to be a jerk? Remind me to avert my eyes when you're putting some effort into it.

A word of advice: you might want to get more than 10 posts under your belt before mouthing off to one of the board moderators. That is what I call common sense.

[mr2686]

Dan, you're welcome to ask any questions you like. As for checks, it used to be believed that if a bank accepted it that it was good, but I think we know these days that pretty much anyone can sign a check with the person's permission (to pay bills, etc) and the bank will never question it. Legal documents are the best items other than in person autographs (as stated above). Not sure if they still do this, but I know in the 80's and 90's there were some shows where Mantle and Ford signed photo stat sheets that were also signed by a Notary, which meant they had to be signed in front of the notary. I guess you could always argue that they could have notarized them afterwards, but they would be taking a chance on losing their license and future revenue stream.

[ss]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Are checks really the safest autographs in the hobby? Looking through my Hunt Auctions Ted Williams sale there are checks on pages 59-61 where the "T" in "Theodore" is clearly signed two totally different ways...did he have a secretary or one of his wives sign for him on checks?

Looking through a sampling the Williams checks, they all look perfect. He did have distinct variations in the "T".

[pclpads]

Originally Posted by Splinte1941

I'm not sure how many times this has to be addressed, but the only way a signature can be 100% authentic is if you saw the person physically sign the item, and even then a third party can raise doubts. I'm sure Ted signed the vast majority of those checks, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove he signed 100% of them. This is simple logic and common sense. Not trying to be a jerk, but it's a fairly easy concept.

A well-liked and respected moderator on this forum with nearly 2,700 posts on the site, posed a legit question. He doesn't deserve to have a load of garbage dumped on him by an ignorant newbie with a mere 10 posts. It's called respect. And, that dear Jakey, is simple logic and common sense. Should be a fairly easy concept.

[ibuysportsephemera]

Jake isn't wrong...his presentation stinks though. JM2¢.

Jeff

[Bilko G]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Wow, and that's NOT trying to be a jerk? Remind me to avert my eyes when you're putting some effort into it.

A word of advice: you might want to get more than 10 posts under your belt before mouthing off to one of the board moderators. That is what I call common sense.

I thought you didn't like the autograph threads?

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Bilko G

I thought you didn't like the autograph threads?

When did I say that?

I like informative threads with good discussion that I can learn from. I don't care for the bickering and rude personality clashes that they sometimes (lately, often) devolve to, but I'm not opposed to autograph threads per se.

I agree with Jeff's comment above, that Jake isn't wrong in saying that the only way to be 100% certain an autograph is real is to have witnessed it being signed yourself, but that isn't what Dan was asking. He asked about checks as the "safest" autographs, and specifics about Williams' signing habits on checks, not how to have a 100% certainty lock on a Williams auto. Subsequent posters addressed Dan's questions in a professional, courteous manner, something which cannot be said of Jake's post, even if Jake's was a correct statement.

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by pclpads

A well-liked and respected moderator on this forum with nearly 2,700 posts on the site, posed a legit question. He doesn't deserve to have a load of garbage dumped on him by an ignorant newbie with a mere 10 posts. It's called respect. And, that dear Jakey, is simple logic and common sense. Should be a fairly easy concept.

Are you and Lance disagreeing with my point or just the way it was delivered? I'd rather you argue the former than the latter.

Ignorant? Please explain to me how my response to him was ignorant. People throw that word around freely without understanding it's true meaning.

Yes, I have 10 posts on this board. If that is a barometer of my expertise, knowledge, and/or intelligence, then yes, I'm in some trouble.

Having said all of that, my apologies to 2700 if I offended him as that was not my intention.

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by ibuysportsephemera

Jake isn't wrong...his presentation stinks though. JM2¢.

Jeff

Agreed. I will make the necessary adjustments and move on. My frustration with the autograph market boiled over and I lost my composure.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Splinte1941

Are you and Lance disagreeing with my point or just the way it was delivered? I'd rather you argue the former than the latter.

Ignorant? Please explain to me how my response to him was ignorant. People throw that word around freely without understanding it's true meaning.

Yes, I have 10 posts on this board. If that is a barometer of my expertise, knowledge, and/or intelligence, then yes, I'm in some trouble.

Having said all of that, my apologies to 2700 if I offended him as that was not my intention.

Jake, I won't speak for Dave, but my issue was primarily with your delivery. It seemed rude and dismissive of Dan's honest questions.

That said, I do appreciate you coming back to the discussion and explaining your frustration rather than just dropping a bomb and moving on. Personally, I don't think your statement itself was wrong, but as I said, neither do I think that it really addressed what Dan was asking.

I won't belabor the point any further. I think your humility in returning to the conversation speaks more for your character than did your original response, and hopefully we can all move on to more productive conversations.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Dan,
Be forewarned, don't forget to bring your (flack)life jacket when you tread these autograph waters.

Scott, I forgot my flack jacket but brought my parachute.

C'mon David - you know the appropriate Aggie joke.

[Baseball Fan]

Was thinking of bidding on this but also remembered this thread. Does this look OK or is there a concern? Thanks for any help.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ted-Williams...YAAOSwzaJX--aU

[tazdmb]

Originally Posted by Baseball Fan

Was thinking of bidding on this but also remembered this thread. Does this look OK or is there a concern? Thanks for any help.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ted-Williams...YAAOSwzaJX--aU

There no way to be 100%......JUST KIDDING Yes, this is good. Was wondering why it showed up after a 4 year bump.

[Baseball Fan]

Originally Posted by tazdmb

There no way to be 100%......JUST KIDDING Yes, this is good. Was wondering why it showed up after a 4 year bump.

Hahahah. Yeah, I happened to remember this thread and figured it's less clutter to bump it up than make a new one.

Thanks for your opinion. Much appreciated.

[jimjim]

nevermind