Thoughts on a Dizzy Dean...

[jgmp123]

Chris,

I just don't see the obvious "just a sloppy forgery" that you do...and a number of others here feel it to be authentic as well.

Is that really all you can say? "Just a sloppy forgery"??

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by jgmp123

Chris,

I just don't see the obvious "just a sloppy forgery" that you do...and a number of others here feel it to be authentic as well.

Is that really all you can say? "Just a sloppy forgery"??

Chris has never seen a good forgery. Most of the time, they're "horrific." Doesn't matter how good it is, doesn't matter if it's genuine. If Chris doesn't like it, it's horrific.

If Jim says it's good, it's good.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by jgmp123

Chris,

I just don't see the obvious "just a sloppy forgery" that you do...and a number of others here feel it to be authentic as well.

Is that really all you can say? "Just a sloppy forgery"??

James, you shouldn't have posted your Dizzy Dean if you didn't want anyone to opine on it.

The moment I looked at it I said to myself "definitely not Dizzy's sig."

[RCMcKenzie]

www.ebay.com/itm/120617222137

I think the signature is fairly consistent with the handwriting style seen on countless examples that you see. The OP's example does not have the typical apostophies flair, which you would think someone who could mimick the handwriting style would include.

[Runscott]

More experienced forum members have taught me that autographs can 'evolve', and I have never paid attention to Dizzy Dean;however, the double-line on the first 'D', and the hesitation and dips in the tops both 'D's would bother me. As with the weird Walter Johnson we discussed here, I would ask for an exemplar that showed these same supposedly 'early Dizzy' characteristics. If it is legit, they should be easy to find.

[jgmp123]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

www.ebay.com/itm/120617222137

I think the signature is fairly consistent with the handwriting style seen on countless examples that you see. The OP's example does not have the typical apostophies flair, which you would think someone who could mimick the handwriting style would include.

This is also from 1942. Dizzys signature changed after 1938...hopefully Jim or Richard can add some light to this...

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

www.ebay.com/itm/120617222137

I think the signature is fairly consistent with the handwriting style seen on countless examples that you see. The OP's example does not have the typical apostophies flair, which you would think someone who could mimick the handwriting style would include.

I also believe the below Dizzy is a secretarial:

Dean-Sec.JPG

The OP's Dizzy is simply not authentic:


Dean-Forgery.JPG

[johnmh71]

I agree. It's all in the "D"'s.

[Sean1125]

I had a dizzy identical to this on a PC and it got PSA/DNA if that says anything... I would just suggest sending it in for authentication I believe it to be good by "psa standards"

[JimStinson]

1939 Dean & 1946 Dean , For what its worth according to most accounts of the day Dizzy Dean was the 2nd most popular target of autograph collectors in the 1930's & early 1940's. Note the unusually long "dip" of the 'y" in Dizzy and lack of period on the lower case i in Dizzy , also lacking the "quotes" on first name
_______________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

web site click here
stinsonsports.com

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

I also believe the below Dizzy is a secretarial:

Attachment 113017

The OP's Dizzy is simply not authentic:


Attachment 113018

For the record, I stand behind both of my comments on the two Dizzy sigs.

The OP's is not authentic and the second one is a secretarial sig.

[bender07]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

For the record, I stand behind both of my comments on the two Dizzy sigs.

The OP's is not authentic and the second one is a secretarial sig.

Agreed. The ebay one is secretarial.