![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
This is part of a multi-signed piece, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a stunted/truncated signature from him. Thoughts?
![]() |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I have been proven wrong on this kind of signature but I would say
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Agree.... really dislike it. There are just too many others that are iron-clad and easily affordable, to mess with this one.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
For comparison I had him sign when he was 20 years old
__________________
RAUCOUS SPORTS CARD FORUM MEMBER AND MONSTER FATHER. GOOD FOR THE HOBBY AND THE FORUM WITH A VAULT IN AN UNDISCLOSED LOCATION FILLED WITH WORTHLESS NON-FUNGIBLES 274/1000 Monster Number |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks, everyone. I keep a lookout for multi-signed induction day HOF items (cachets, FDCs, etc…) and thought this would be a nice addition. Perhaps they are all questionable?
![]() |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I'm going to provide a dissenting opinion. I think the Killer auto is good, though not the best example. I can imagine a sizeable stack of these were signed at one time. Pen pressure and ink flow look genuine.
And I believe all the ones on the cachet are good also.
__________________
Working Sets: Baseball- T206 SLers - Virginia League (-1) 1952 Topps - low numbers (-1) 1953 Topps (-91) 1954 Bowman (-3) 1964 Topps Giants auto'd (-2) |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
He typically took the time to form every letter, and publicly took pride in his neat signature.
That said, the other sigs on the envelope look okay, and perhaps it's just a rushed/sloppy example. I still don't love it by any means, but am leaning more towards good (given the new view of the entire piece and the fact that one standout forgery seems pretty unlikely... Especially for a common sig like Killebrew's (which doesn't add much monetary value). |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I wouldn't hesitate buying that. I believe all those signatures are good.
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
My sig example does not mean I question da sig in the thread. I agree that both are authentic
__________________
RAUCOUS SPORTS CARD FORUM MEMBER AND MONSTER FATHER. GOOD FOR THE HOBBY AND THE FORUM WITH A VAULT IN AN UNDISCLOSED LOCATION FILLED WITH WORTHLESS NON-FUNGIBLES 274/1000 Monster Number |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I believe this Killebrew signature is good. In a rush crowd type setting at times it was not uncommon for Killebrew to shorten up on his signature. There are several "Harm Killer" signatures out there that are good signatures. This is a perfect example of a rushed Killebrew. As Killebrew aged he became more staunch about being able to read his whole signature and took his time to make sure you could read every letter. He would also champion that cause for future Twins players. His most notable disciples of that theory were Michael Cuddyer and Torii Hunter.
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
I have several Killebrew on smaller items where he abbreviated his signature this way. I think it's good as well as the others on this cachet. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I must admit I am wrong again on the Killebrew. I am just so used to his perfect signatures that this type has be fooled.
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
55 killebrew rookie 56 clemente 57 dodger team 59 koufax killebrew | joepa | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 04-09-2014 09:06 AM |
for trade 55 killebrew 56 clemente 57 aaron 59koufax killebrew 61 maris 62 maris | joepa | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 11-25-2013 08:35 AM |
53 campanella ex mt55 killebrew rookie vgex 57 aaron ex+59 koufax ex + 59 killebrew e | joepa | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 10-25-2013 09:22 AM |
killebrew rookie ex mt killebrew 59 nr mt for trade | joepa | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 04-19-2013 03:31 PM |
killebrew rookie ex mt 59 killebrew nr mt for trade | joepa | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 04-05-2013 07:20 PM |