"Vast Majority of HOF Autographs Are Fake"

[Exhibitman]

"after being kicked off a train for drunkenness he was apparently swept over Niagara Falls. A few hand-written letters with his name misspelled, Delehanty, are floating around"

Bravo!

[HRBAKER]

The proxy or consensual definition doesn't make it any less of a fake signature.

Agree with this even though the origin of the signature may not have been meant to defraud.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

The proxy or consensual definition doesn't make it any less of a fake signature.

Agree with this even though the origin of the signature may not have been meant to defraud.

Agree, the difference between a fake and a forgery is the intent. The intent is always monetary gain with a forgery.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

The proxy or consensual definition doesn't make it any less of a fake signature.

Agree with this even though the origin of the signature may not have been meant to defraud.

There is quite a difference. An American League contract with a forged Ruppert signature was and is a worthless piece of paper. An American League contract with a proxy Ruppert signature was a valid legal document, binding upon both player and Club.

[shelly]

David, I wrote about a ball player who was given cards to sign for a card company. He then gave them to his brother to sign. They where then placed into packs. When these cards are sold are they forgerys?

[MooseDog]

Originally Posted by shelly

David, I wrote about a ball player who was given cards to sign for a card company. He then gave them to his brother to sign. They where then placed into packs. When these cards are sold are they forgerys?

Topps, I believe, requires the signatures to be witnessed. I happened to have had the opportunity to do this for a couple of players during Spring Training way back when. Player got to keep 5 for himself. Every other card had to be accounted for. They even required the pens to be returned.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by shelly

David, I wrote about a ball player who was given cards to sign for a card company. He then gave them to his brother to sign. They where then placed into packs. When these cards are sold are they forgerys?

Nope. And they're not forgeries, either. But they are worthless to collectors. And, more to the point, since the player was being paid by the card company to provide his actual signature, in using an authorized proxy the player committed fraud, and could be prosecuted if the card company chose to press charges.

Notice that in this case, Shelly, it's the player (not the signer) who committed fraud. If some unauthorized person signed the cards, and then sold them to the card company as genuine, the signatures would be forgeries, and the signer would be the one committing fraud.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

There is quite a difference. An American League contract with a forged Ruppert signature was and is a worthless piece of paper. An American League contract with a proxy Ruppert signature was a valid legal document, binding upon both player and Club.

David your point is valid as it relates to the legitimacy/authority of the document you mention; nonetheless, it is not an authentic signature.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

David your point is valid as it relates to the legitimacy/authority of the document you mention; nonetheless, it is not an authentic signature.

No one ever said a proxy is an authentic signature. What's been said is that a proxy is not a forgery. And that's because it's not.