Jackie Robinson autograph card - Your thoughts?

[mrmopar]

I will say that I can't find another image online of his signature that is not all on a single plane, so that there may be reason enough to call this one out as bad.

What other clues do you guys see? Just looking at some of the scans online, I wouldn't say to my naked eye that it is not even close. It definitely shares similarities with some authentic signatures. I'm curious, as you all have said bad, and I don't doubt that, but no details as to what you see or why. "Ew" is the clear winner so far though.

[shelly]

[ATP]

There are so many inconsistencies with the signature, but you don't really even need to analyze that. You can just look at the way the ink is sitting on it, and can tell that it was recently signed on an old item.

[keithsky]

If you said you bought it in the late 90's could be one of the Marino group autographs. The guys that got busted in the Operation Bullpen thing

[GrayGhost]

Horrible

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by ATP

You can just look at the way the ink is sitting on it, and can tell that it was recently signed on an old item.

I'm not sure that anyone could differentiate between 1970 and 1995 ink on a 1956 card. To me, it looks like a thin tip Flair.

[Econteachert205]

The k and capital r are not at all right. K looks like an h.

[ATP]

Originally Posted by Deertick

I'm not sure that anyone could differentiate between 1970 and 1995 ink on a 1956 card. To me, it looks like a thin tip Flair.

Look at the way the ink feathers out on some of the letters. If it were signed sometime in the vicinity of when the card was made that wouldn't happen. The fibers in the paper start to separate over time and the ink splashed out, especially when signed too slowly.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by ATP

Look at the way the ink feathers out on some of the letters. If it were signed sometime in the vicinity of when the card was made that wouldn't happen. The fibers in the paper start to separate over time and the ink splashed out, especially when signed too slowly.

Was gunna write pretty much the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1880nonsports]

that if the OP is unable to differentiate between the two autographs which are NEXT to each other - he should probably be careful from now on when accessing items in the medicine chest - often the toothbrush and razor are found in close proximity....

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by ATP

Look at the way the ink feathers out on some of the letters. If it were signed sometime in the vicinity of when the card was made that wouldn't happen. The fibers in the paper start to separate over time and the ink splashed out, especially when signed too slowly.

I understand the principle. I am only pointing out that while it is possible to dispute a claim it was forged in 1957, a signature would most likely exhibit the same characteristics if it were signed in 1972, 1995, or 2008.

[gnaz01]

The ears don't match

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by mrmopar

I wouldn't say to my naked eye that it is not even close.

All the other naked eyes, including mine, are seeing it as not even close.