How it should be done.

[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.

[whitehse]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

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

More than anything I am amazed that the child who was in this picture would sell it off as an adult. It is either sad that he needed the money that badly, or even sadder that he had nobody to pass this incredible snapshot in time on to. Please tell me there is a better ending to the story as to why this person sold off a family heirloom such as this.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by whitehse

More than anything I am amazed that the child who was in this picture would sell it off as an adult. It is either sad that he needed the money that badly, or even sadder that he had nobody to pass this incredible snapshot in time on to. Please tell me there is a better ending to the story as to why this person sold off a family heirloom such as this.

Some people (a lot of people?) have no desire to keep objects the way we collectors do. I go to auctions all the time where family members are present and they're selling off albums full of family photos. Stuff like that just doesn't mean anything to them.

[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]

But, as long as you are in the mood to change your statements, how about 1920's? Any examples in your files from that decade that violate both criteria?

[David Atkatz]

Change my statements? Do you really think I was unaware of the two examples I just posted, which are in my collection? I've owned the "To Mimmie" photo since I was 15--it's been my most prized possession for 46 years.

I thought you were expert enough to understand what was being discussed. Sorry I overestimated you.

In the twenties, Gehrig did not run his "L" and "G" together.

(I'm sure that was a trick question, Scott, 'cause anyone with your expertise would know that.)

[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.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Runscott

David, I counted you out long ago.

Fine with me, Scott. As I said before, your opinion on Ruth, Gehrig, and other vintage Yankees is worth about as much as my opinion on T206s.