Babe Ruth - Good or Bad?

[Westsiders]

Originally Posted by JT

What is the general opinion on this one?

Just found it on ebay...here's the link.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Babe-Ruth-Au...item1e79678857

[Runscott]

A big issue that I see with autograph forum interaction, is that when faced with something like this, none of the PSA/DNA supporters come out and state that they think Spence goofed.

To me that means that they agree that it's real - what other conclusion can we arrive at? I could say a lot more here, but I'm going to save it for later - not hiding anything, just don't feel like having an all-out war regarding PSA/DNA, quite yet.

Here's a newsflash: if you occasionally (not all the time), agree with your 'enemy', your opinions will be MORE respected regarding other things. It's true.

[JT]

Here is the entire ball.

Does this change anyone's mind?

[shelly]

No.

[Mr. Zipper]

And people wonder why there are so few responses...

This is the perfect example of a "got ya" and a reason why people don't respond.

Showing a strange, atypical signature yet not showing the accompanying writing. And maybe part of the reason the sig looks strange is because he was squeezing it in, an element that is lost when seeing a closely cropped photo out of context.

I am not comfortable offering an opinion of real or not, but authentication should be about looking at the whole picture.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

And people wonder why there are so few responses...

This is the perfect example of a "got ya" and a reason why people don't respond.

Showing a strange, atypical signature yet not showing the accompanying writing. And maybe part of the reason the sig looks strange is because he was squeezing it in, an element that is lost when seeing a closely cropped photo out of context.

I am not comfortable offering an opinion of real or not, but authentication should be about looking at the whole picture.

+1

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

And people wonder why there are so few responses...

This is the perfect example of a "got ya" and a reason why people don't respond.

Showing a strange, atypical signature yet not showing the accompanying writing. And maybe part of the reason the sig looks strange is because he was squeezing it in, an element that is lost when seeing a closely cropped photo out of context.

I am not comfortable offering an opinion of real or not, but authentication should be about looking at the whole picture.

You are so right Zip , that was why I asked for it.
+1

[Mr. Zipper]

OMG

I got Richard and David to agree.

[JT]

Like I asked, does this change anyone's mind now that the whole inscription is shown?

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

You are so right Zip , that was why I asked for it.
+1

Can you ask Chris to show us the entire "Michigan Forgers" Ruth autograph that he posted in the other thread?

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Can you ask Chris to show us the entire "Michigan Forgers" Ruth autograph that he posted in the other thread?

Lotsa luck with that!

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

And people wonder why there are so few responses...

This is the perfect example of a "got ya" and a reason why people don't respond.

Showing a strange, atypical signature yet not showing the accompanying writing. And maybe part of the reason the sig looks strange is because he was squeezing it in, an element that is lost when seeing a closely cropped photo out of context.

I am not comfortable offering an opinion of real or not, but authentication should be about looking at the whole picture.

I don't see how it is a "got ya". The ebay auction link was presented - I went out and looked at it, and saw the entire signature. It still doesn't look good, no matter how much of it is shown.

Sure, it could be real. Yes, if real, it's atypical. Is there good enough reason to authenticate it? I don't think so.

Authentication of autographs shouldn't be about making sure that no good ones slip through the cracks. Erring should be on the side of caution. But that would mean less money for all involved...and thus we have what we have.

[shelly]

Scott, it was not there at the start of the thread.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by shelly

Scott, it was not there at the start of the thread.

Okay, I get why it's considered a "got ya" thread, but I still don't see how the additional picture proves it's simply "atypical".

Is it because for this particular ball, Ruth suddenly forgot how to leave room for his name?