Genuine Babe Ruth Autographs

[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.

[mschwade]

Originally Posted by ss

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

One? I'd want a lot more than that.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by ss

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

Haven't seen one yet. Have you?

[ss]

Nope, but to have any validity we need to look just as hard - even if we don't believe it, do we not?

[cipollinaj]

I'm a newbie but would just like to offer an opinion on the examples shown in the beginning of this post.
The B in the autographs on the left side of page (done on a flat surface) are no different
to the B in the autographs on the right side (on baseball).
The B is not more vertical on the baseballs but is due to some foreshortening and change of viewing angle
when you photograph a curved object.
Think of a stick placed in the ground at an angle in front of you like "/"
when you start to walk around the stick it would slowly appear more vertical until it actually looks like this " l "
Look at the Babe Ruth autograph I picked from the left column and traced it onto a ball. The autograph is on top and the traced autograph on the ball is on bottom. You can see when looking at the red arrows that the B is more vertical in the photo of the baseball .
It is important to note also that the letters "th" in Ruth are now more vertical on the baseball because of the same distortion and can be seen in all the examples of baseballs shown
http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...1&d=1358810459
my .02 cents for what its worth

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by cipollinaj

I'm a newbie but would just like to offer an opinion on the examples shown in the beginning of this post.
The B in the autographs on the left side of page (done on a flat surface) are no different
to the B in the autographs on the right side (on baseball).
The B is not more vertical on the baseballs but is do to foreshortening
when you photograph a curved object.
Think of a stick placed in ground at angle in front of you like "/"
when you start to walk around the stick it would slowly appear more vertical until it actually looks like this " l "
Look at the Babe Ruth autograph I picked from the left column and traced it onto a ball. The autograph is on top and the traced autograph on the ball is on bottom. You can see when looking at the red arrows that the B is more vertical in the photo of the baseball and the two words have also narrowed, just like in all the examples of baseballs shown
http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...1&d=1358810459
my .02 cents for what its worth

Earlier in the thread I opined, "it appears some of the images of the balls on the right have been "flattened," which could lead to further distortion."

I think you described much more clearly what I was driving at.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by cipollinaj

I'm a newbie but would just like to offer an opinion on the examples shown in the beginning of this post.
The B in the autographs on the left side of page (done on a flat surface) are no different
to the B in the autographs on the right side (on baseball).
The B is not more vertical on the baseballs but is due to some foreshortening and change of viewing angle
when you photograph a curved object.
Think of a stick placed in the ground at an angle in front of you like "/"
when you start to walk around the stick it would slowly appear more vertical until it actually looks like this " l "
Look at the Babe Ruth autograph I picked from the left column and traced it onto a ball. The autograph is on top and the traced autograph on the ball is on bottom. You can see when looking at the red arrows that the B is more vertical in the photo of the baseball .
It is important to note also that the letters "th" in Ruth are now more vertical on the baseball because of the same distortion and can be seen in all the examples of baseballs shown
http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...1&d=1358810459
my .02 cents for what its worth

This explanation (and convincing visual demonstration) seems to make a lot of sense. So where does that leave us regarding consistent differences between the genuine autographs on the left and alleged autos on the right - aside from Jim's red flags regarding the sudden appearance of multiple, single-signed pristine balls with mint Ruth autos all within a relatively short time frame?