How it should be done.

[David Atkatz]

Want to call an autograph fake and stand a chance of convincing someone?

Here's how it's done:

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=19791#more-19791

[Runscott]

David, since no one else is responding to your post, I'll take the bait.

Are you being facetious, or do you really believe that Nash has made a valid point?;i.e-do you think that balls with spacing between the 'L' and 'G' and with fully-formed 'u's are more likely to be forgeries?

[travrosty]

he said it stands a chance of convincing someone, he showed differences in autographs, comparing idiosyncracies. that can convince as opposed to just saying I know and 98% of the other people are stupid so just believe me.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by travrosty

he said it stands a chance of convincing someone, he showed differences in autographs, comparing idiosyncracies. that can convince as opposed to just saying you know and 98% of the other people are stupid so just believe me.

That may be (and I agree with you), but I still want to know if David agrees with Nash regarding Gehrig autographs.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Runscott

David, since no one else is responding to your post, I'll take the bait.

Are you being facetious, or do you really believe that Nash has made a valid point?;i.e-do you think that balls with spacing between the 'L' and 'G' and with fully-formed 'u's are more likely to be forgeries?

I was not being facetious at all. Agree or disagree, right or wrong, Nash presents an hypothesis that can be subjected to further test. That's the way it's done.

Do I agree? Not completely, but he may be on to something. Here's a genuine mid-late thirties Gehrig in which the "L" and the "G" do not touch, but, as in the genuine examples Nash shows, there is no final upstroke in the "u":



So, it fulfills one of the criteria for "genuineness," as presented, but fails the other. Going through my files, I can't find a genuine Gehrig that violates both criteria.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Going through my files, I can't find a genuine Gehrig that violates both criteria.

Really? Going through YOUR files - I can.

[JimStinson]

I ...................LOVE that photo , 250 pound Giant , baseball superstar embracing a child that is having the "moment" of his/her life , Another reason why I embrace this hobby. MAGIC ....Thank you
__________________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by JimStinson

I ...................LOVE that photo , 250 pound Giant , baseball superstar embracing a child that is having the "moment" of his/her life , Another reason why I embrace this hobby. MAGIC ....Thank you
__________________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

Thanks, Jim. I love it, too. I actually purchased the photo from that child. A bit older, though.

[shelly]

My question is who gives Nash all the info that he puts up. I know that it must come from other people that have a very good idea of what is and what's not. People that I am sure are respected on this site.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Really? Going through YOUR files - I can.

Yeah. Really.

I should be a bit more precise. There are many, many examples of mid-late thirties Gehrig signatures that violate both criteria.

Here are two:





These are examples of Gehrig's more careful signature. Nash is not talking about this signature, but rather his more rushed "ballpark" signature form.

I assumed someone with your excellent eye would have realized that.

If you want to discuss Nash's ideas, fine. If you want to act like a smug SOB, count me out.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Yeah. Really.

I should be a bit more precise. There are many, many examples of mid-late thirties Gehrig signatures that violate both criteria.

That's not being more precise - that's changing your statement.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

I assumed someone with your excellent eye would have realized that.

If you want to discuss Nash's ideas, fine. If you want to act like a smug SOB, count me out.

David, I counted you out long ago.