Very, very, interesting...

[GrayGhost]

I think the article is fascinating, and at the VERY LEAST should be serious food for thought. The Alphabet authenticators have garnered such a name, based on advertising dollars, and apparently a level of Skill (how much?), that their work is basically just "taken for granted" as real.

I know from an untrained eye that the signatures on the balls in the article have basically NO slant on the small b in Babe, save for one example. Many of them look nearly identical.

Point is, nobody has a signature thats identical all the time, tho there are many times they are close. What I mean is, suppose in the photo there w Babe w a bunch of balls on the dugout to sign. The group. signed right after another, would probably be fairly close to the same, while one signed later, days or hours, or w/e, may vary some.

IMO, the article does seem to be aiming to shoot down the Alphabet guys, but from what I see, even with the "flat exemplars" only, there is ENOUGH here to at least give a serious look at some or all of those balls being fake. That is, unless you are one of those who think that the Alphabet guys' s*** doesn't stink.

[mschwade]

Originally Posted by GrayGhost

What I mean is, suppose in the photo there w Babe w a bunch of balls on the dugout to sign. The group. signed right after another, would probably be fairly close to the same, while one signed later, days or hours, or w/e, may vary some.

You ever closed on a house? My signature at the end of the document was much more sloppy than when I first started signing at the closing.

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Honestly, I am not impressed by the latest article. Everyone has an opinion; unlike stolen artifacts, there's no smoking gun there. It isn't like the Ruth sigs in question are obvious fakes like the crap in Coach's Corner. Plus it is a little misleading to compare scans of flats with pictures of signatures written on a curved surface. Not only do the conditions affect the signer but there is some flattening of the image on the latter that results in a distortion that our eyes compensate for when we look at a curved object directly.

like

Originally Posted by mschwade

You ever closed on a house? My signature at the end of the document was much more sloppy than when I first started signing at the closing.

like

[19cbb]

Originally Posted by GrayGhost

I think the article is fascinating, and at the VERY LEAST should be serious food for thought. The Alphabet authenticators have garnered such a name, based on advertising dollars, and apparently a level of Skill (how much?), that their work is basically just "taken for granted" as real.

Like

[travrosty]

you can sign your first name with the sweet spot a little to the right, then rotate, then sign your last name. so you are signing with the ball still, and no rotation as you sign.

you cut down on the uphill/downhill signing which isnt that negligable to begin with.

why isnt mantle, williams, dimaggio mentioned as balls looking different than flats? because they don't look different. only ruth? its the twilight zone.

[GrayGhost]

Originally Posted by travrosty

why isnt mantle, williams, dimaggio mentioned as balls looking different than flats? Because they don't look different. Only ruth? Its the twilight zone.

like

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by travrosty

why isnt mantle, williams, dimaggio mentioned as balls looking different than flats? because they don't look different. only ruth? its the twilight zone.

Have we changed the old +1 to the word "like" now ??

I guess I have to cover both bases: like, +1


it is a large advertising budget that has helped convince some collectors that there is a hierarchy of people in the hobby who know more than the rest of the peasants down below.
Give me a good experienced dealer or certain experienced collectors any day of the week over any combination of alphabet soups.
I would take Keuragian, Stinson, Corcoran, Albersheim, Gordon, Keating, Cariseo, Marks, Hefner, Evans and a few more over the alphabet soups any day of the week.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by travrosty

why isnt mantle, williams, dimaggio mentioned as balls looking different than flats? because they don't look different. only ruth? its the twilight zone.

One could reasonably speculate that it could vary by signer because everyone signs at a different angle, etc. And in my opinion, Mantle on a ball does look slightly different than flat signatures.

Given the seriousness of the allegations it is a legitimate question. Why not make a like comparison?

[mr2686]

Here are two Mantles, one flat and one on a ball signed within a minute of each other in 1989 for comparison

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

One could reasonably speculate that it could vary by signer because everyone signs at a different angle, etc. And in my opinion, Mantle on a ball does look slightly different than flat signatures.

Given the seriousness of the allegations it is a legitimate question. Why not make a like comparison?

I'd have to agree that Mantle does sign "somewhat" differently in ball-point pen on a baseball vs. on a Flat with a sharpie. He drops ink many, many times with sharpie at the beginning of his M's. With pen on a ball, there is more of a small dot where the M's almost perfectly stop & come together to make the half moon. It's obviously a lot smaller too. A few of the tells are the same and a few different, IMHO.

Great 3rd part to the story. I can't wait for more!

[slidekellyslide]

Bottom line in the autograph hobby...unless it has rock solid provenance or you got it in person you will never know for sure if it's legit..even if ABC soup has given it's seal of approval. We've all heard the stories of authenticators failing an autograph that you got in person, and we've all seen the Sal Bando gotcha video. Sure, there are easy to spot fakes, but there are also extremely good forgers out there. It's all a crap shoot.

[sox1903wschamp]

That is one sweet Ruth Ball. Thank you for posting it David.

[mark evans]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Bottom line in the autograph hobby...unless it has rock solid provenance or you got it in person you will never know for sure if it's legit..even if ABC soup has given it's seal of approval. We've all heard the stories of authenticators failing an autograph that you got in person, and we've all seen the Sal Bando gotcha video. Sure, there are easy to spot fakes, but there are also extremely good forgers out there. It's all a crap shoot.

This is my view as well. I know some on the Board believe that with sufficient education one can become an expert. That's no doubt true. But, what I've learned from this and other threads is that some forgeries are of such high 'quality' that the experts cannot agree with each other.