![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
View Poll Results: Which Wheat do you Think is Better (ie. Keeper)? | |||
Wheat #1 (SGC # ends -036) is better |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
22 | 46.81% |
Wheat #2 (SGC # ends -037) is better |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
25 | 53.19% |
Voters: 47. You may not vote on this poll |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi All,
I acquired two lovely Zack Wheat signed 3x5 cards together as part of an auction lot. I'd like to keep the better one, and I believe a collector friend of mine will happily take the one I decide to let go. They are both really nice IMO, but I'd like your thoughts on which one is the keeper (you feel is a better 'graph). Wheat #1 (SGC # ends -036) is better centered on the card, but the "h" does not form a neat closed loop and the "W" does not link to the "h". Wheat #2 (SGC # ends -037) is a bit off centre to the left on the card, but IMO the letter construction is more typical of the better examples of Wheat's signature. Your opinions - and votes in the poll - would be valued! Cheers, Blair
__________________
My Collection (in progress) at: http://www.collectorfocus.com/collection/BosoxBlair Last edited by Bosox Blair; 10-16-2014 at 03:04 AM. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
My vote is purely from the aesthetic view with no knowledge of other Wheats and what exemplifies his auto better.
#1 looks better because it is centered and the card looks cleaner.
__________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bn2cardz/albums |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I would go with the bottom signature. The whole signature seems bolder and the "k" in Zack is better formed, and the "Wh" transition / connector in Wheat is more complete and flowing and formed than in the top one. Centering in this case would not bother me, I am looking at quality of signature , in my opinion , only.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Before reading your post all the way through, I looked at the cards and chose #1. Then I read that you think #2 is a better representation of his signature. If that's the case, then I'd choose the signature quality of #2 over the slightly better centering of #1.
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
As far as what was more 'typical', I tend to go with signatures that are not typical. This Wheat, for instance, is appealing to me simply because it is different from how he normally signed.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+ Last edited by Runscott; 11-30-2014 at 12:07 PM. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Number One
__________________
Baseball is our saving Grace! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks for the votes and comments so far guys - please keep them coming!
Cheers, Blair
__________________
My Collection (in progress) at: http://www.collectorfocus.com/collection/BosoxBlair |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I like the second one better. The h in Wheat is complete in the second one. Both are nice.
__________________
http://www.collectorfocus.com/collection/kdixon |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Number 2 because the Z is more natural in flow, and less forced.
__________________
Galleries and Articles about T206 Player Autographs www.SignedT206.com www.instagram.com/signedT206/ @SignedT206 |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What helped you decide | Bwstew | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 17 | 04-24-2013 08:20 PM |
SOLD: c1900's Original Kelso Studio Cabinet - Zach Wheat, Mack Wheat & Brother | bcbgcbrcb | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T | 1 | 09-01-2012 10:03 AM |
Help me decide: Which would you rather have? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 43 | 04-14-2007 05:46 PM |
NY Dinner II or III, you decide. | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 45 | 04-07-2007 10:48 AM |
no grade is given,you decide! | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 6 | 07-19-2002 10:10 AM |