![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#25
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I am not offering an opinion on the authenticity of the signature. But the "dot pattern" is simply the grain of the leather. When the surface ink wears away, it still remains in the depressions. Thus, the dot pattern will be identical, and does not depend at all upon the way the ink was applied to the ball. Notice the dots in the Ruth signature below.
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ruth Sig - Real or Not so much? | Shoeless Moe | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 4 | 01-30-2011 08:54 AM |
Are 1917 Collins-McCarthy Babe Ruth and 1921 Oxford Ruth real? | Peleseller | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 6 | 01-07-2011 02:07 PM |
Real Ruth or not? | yanks12025 | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 4 | 11-04-2009 01:06 PM |
Real Ruth? | GrayGhost | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 5 | 10-30-2009 06:48 PM |
This '33 Ruth #53 isn't real, is it? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 09-22-2001 12:51 PM |