So what is up with Jim Rice...

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by Bosox Blair

I have an early 1980s Red Sox payroll check to Rice with his signature on it. It is like the one on the '83 Topps you show (except it is signed as James instead of Jim).

Those '76 ones are horrible.

Cheers,
Blair

Found a scan - 1986 payroll check:

[David Atkatz]

Why do you think for an instant that the scrawl was done by Rice? Because PSA said so?

Not much of a reason, when all evidence implies otherwise.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Why do you think for an instant that the scrawl was done by Rice? Because PSA said so?

Not much of a reason, when all evidence implies otherwise.

Because option B: That a master forger got rich flooding the market with a stack of 1976 Topps Jim Rice cards not signed by Jim Rice nor the forger, but by the forger's pet chimp Bubbles - just doesn't seem plausible.

All jokes aside, no, I don't just follow PSA like a blind sheep. Please.... Give me more credit than that. I'm a Global guy.

[canjond]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Why do you think for an instant that the scrawl was done by Rice? Because PSA said so?

Not much of a reason, when all evidence implies otherwise.

David - you know I value your opinion on a lot of things, but I gotta disagree with you here . Actually, I think all of the evidence presented thus far gives more credence to the theory that Rice signs his '76 Topps in a manner different than his other cards. In fact, I don't think anyone has posted a '76 Topps card signed with the "legible" version of the Jim Rice signature yet.

[7nohitter]

Originally Posted by canjond

David - you know I value your opinion on a lot of things, but I gotta disagree with you here . Actually, I think all of the evidence presented thus far gives more credence to the theory that Rice signs his '76 Topps in a manner different than his other cards. In fact, I don't think anyone has posted a '76 Topps card signed with the "legible" version of the Jim Rice signature yet.

Let's just ask him. Rice currently works for NESN, the Red Sox-owned TV station. I wonder if a quick email or tweet will net a result....I'll attempt later today.

[7nohitter]

I emailed Rice and sent him a tweet...we'll see if there are any results, though I doubt it. I may have to reach out to a contact at NESN.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by canjond

David - you know I value your opinion on a lot of things, but I gotta disagree with you here . Actually, I think all of the evidence presented thus far gives more credence to the theory that Rice signs his '76 Topps in a manner different than his other cards. In fact, I don't think anyone has posted a '76 Topps card signed with the "legible" version of the Jim Rice signature yet.

Tell me how PSA could certify both examples shown by the OP. Even if a PSA authenticator saw with his own eyes Rice scribbling on his rookie card, how could he call that "signed," or "autographed"?

Suppose I had a piece of paper that Babe Ruth used to get the ink in his fountain pen flowing. You know, he just scribbled randomly until the pen began to write, and then kept scribbling a bit longer to make sure the pen kept working. Would PSA consider that a genuine Ruth autograph? Would anyone?

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Suppose I had a piece of paper that Babe Ruth used to get the ink in his fountain pen flowing. You know, he just scribbled randomly until the pen began to write, and then kept scribbling a bit longer to make sure the pen kept working. Would PSA consider that a genuine Ruth autograph? Would anyone?

It certainly wouldn't count as an autograph, but presuming the authenticity on such an item was unquestioned, it might be a fun novelty piece to own.

Babe Ruth squiggles? Why not? As long as you don't pay too much for it, and I guess you also have to be in a frame of mind that you don't take the hobby too seriously.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Gary Dunaier

It certainly wouldn't count as an autograph...

But PSA said those squiggles on the cards (which are certainly not Rice's signature) are "authentic autographs." We agree the are not.

And how does PSA know that Rice made those squiggles? They are certainly not recognizable, or unique to Rice.

[MooseDog]

Originally Posted by Gary Dunaier

It certainly wouldn't count as an autograph, but presuming the authenticity on such an item was unquestioned, it might be a fun novelty piece to own.

Babe Ruth squiggles? Why not? As long as you don't pay too much for it, and I guess you also have to be in a frame of mind that you don't take the hobby too seriously.

Actually, we may be splitting hairs here, but an "autograph", defined by "the act of writing with one's own hand" whereas as a "signature" would be defined "the handwritten representation of a person's name".

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by MooseDog

Actually, we may be splitting hairs here, but an "autograph", defined by "the act of writing with one's own hand" whereas as a "signature" would be defined "the handwritten representation of a person's name".

Yes, I'm quite aware of that. But "writing" is defined as

writ·ing
ˈrīdiNG/
noun
1.
the activity or skill of marking coherent words on paper and composing text.
"parents want schools to concentrate on reading, writing, and arithmetic"
2.
written work, especially with regard to its style or quality.
"the writing is straightforward and accessible"

Thus scribbles are not "writing," and it follows that they are not an "autograph," either.