Genuine Babe Ruth Autographs

[prewarsports]

Christy Mathewson signed baseballs different than paper

Hugh Jennings signed a baseball different depending on the day of the week. Half the time he printed his name.

Ever seen Earl Hamiltons signature on anything? I've owned 3 on Baseballs and 5 on paper. He had a nice signature when he signed on paper and he printed his name on Baseballs.

I have also included some scans of others. Look at them.

Ever seen a Bressler like that on paper?

Eddie Collins signed differently early in his career on baseballs, Probably because its hard to sign a baseball.

Bender didn't always sign like that on Baseballs or paper.

Why did Paddy Livingston print his name, thats not what his signature looks like.

etc. etc. I could come up with 100 in a few days if I felt it was worth my time or it would make a bit of difference.

I never said Ruth "Consistantly" signed Baseballs different than paper, I only say that the factor DOES EXIST so why compare ALL paper autographs to ALL Baseball signed autographs, thats it!

Not going to bother taking this any further. "Methinks" it wouldn't matter anyways so why waste my time. I feel that way a lot on this forum.

Have a nice debate guys!

[ss]

Actually, it was hundreds. This is silly. Pick up a ball, sign it, and look at the difference.

[Runscott]

Since we are talking about Ruth, why not just compare some real paper sigs to some real ball sigs? Surely all the Ruth experts on this forum can come up with 3-4 real ones of each?

With thousands of Ruth signatures out there, each going for thousands, if they can't come up with 3-4 of each, the 'forged Ruth' problem is even more serious than I thought.

[BrandonG]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Since we are talking about Ruth, why not just compare some real paper sigs to some real ball sigs? Surely all the Ruth experts on this forum can come up with 3-4 real ones of each?

With thousands of Ruth signatures out there, each going for thousands, if they can't come up with 3-4 of each, the 'forged Ruth' problem is even more serious than I thought.

+1 (plus now I'm nervous about my ball)

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Since we are talking about Ruth, why not just compare some real paper sigs to some real ball sigs? Surely all the Ruth experts on this forum can come up with 3-4 real ones of each?

Yes, this should be done. But it's very important to compare signatures according to the (approximate) year signed. Ruth's signature changed over time--as do most people's--so it makes no sense to compare, say, a 1927-signed flat with a 1945- signed ball.

[BrandonG]

Going to rethink this one.

[BrandonG]

edited, sorry.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Yes, this should be done. But it's very important to compare signatures according to the (approximate) year signed. Ruth's signature changed over time--as do most people's--so it makes no sense to compare, say, a 1927-signed flat with a 1945- signed ball.

Okay, thanks. Another example of my ignorance regarding Ruth autographs, and why I have no business purchasing one. For the most part I stick with handwritten letters, but I have bought a few autographed photos and books. I'm out of my element there, and in some cases so were the authenticators who put their seal of approval on them

The thing that has amazed me more than anything else in the vintage sports collectibles hobby, is that most of the people who really have an eye for autographs, do not work for the authenticating services, and the photograph experts do not work for the authenticating services. We have at least ten people in each of those categories, right here on Net54, who could do a much better job (and do). I really wish that SGC, PSA, etc., would stick with baseball cards. They have no business trying to authenticate cabinet cards, photos or autographs.

The fact that the vintage card experts also do not work for the grading companies does not surprise me, as we would be unaffordable.

[David Atkatz]

Let's go back to the OP's photo. The question we are trying to answer is "were the baseballs on the right signed by Babe Ruth?" Let's investigate.

Perhaps it is wrong to compare signed baseballs with signed flats. But what can we learn here?

I think most would agree that the examples on the left--the signed flats--were executed by the same person. And there is compelling evidence that that person was Ruth. I think, too, that most would agree that the signatures on the right--the signed balls--were executed by the same person. They are consistent, one to the other. But they do differ--in a precise and very consistent way--with the signatures on the left. The only way the balls on the right could have been signed by Ruth is if the difference in medium--paper vs. baseballs--accounts for those very consistent differences.

I contend the difference in medium cannot account for the difference in signatures. It would help my argument, I admit, for me to provide examples of Ruth-signed balls that look just like Ruth-signed flats. When I return home--I'm out-of-town tonight--I will try to do just that.

Remember, though, that in order to argue that the balls were signed by Ruth, one must show that Ruth's signature always differed from those shown on the left, and in just the precise way we see here, when he signed a ball. Thus, I argue, the existence of just one example of a Ruth-signed ball agreeing with a Ruth-signed flat proves--at least to me--that he did not sign the balls shown here.

[ss]

Unless of course, you find one authentic signed flat that is consistent with the way he signatures on the right.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by ss

Actually, it was hundreds. This is silly. Pick up a ball, sign it, and look at the difference.

I have.
There's no difference.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Christy Mathewson signed baseballs different than paper

Did he now? How many genuinely Mathewson baseballs are there?

Ever seen Earl Hamiltons signature on anything? I've owned 3 on Baseballs and 5 on paper. He had a nice signature when he signed on paper and he printed his name on Baseballs.

So we don't know how is signature would differ--if at all--when actually signing a baseball.

I have also included some scans of others. Look at them.

I have. You've shown scans of signed baseballs. You've shown no comparisons of signature differences between flats and balls.

Not going to bother taking this any further. "Methinks" it wouldn't matter anyways so why waste my time. I feel that way a lot on this forum.

What's wrong? Someone disagrees with you? Present some compelling evidence, and you'll convince people. Arguments like "the fact that some printed their names proves that signatures on balls and flats differ" won't cut it.