Any thoughts on this Splendid Splinter

[JollyElm]

williams.jpg

In another thread I posted the Teddy Williams I got through the mail years ago, wondering if they were authentic. Your bottom one there has the same interconnected "dW" as mine do. The plot thickens...

[chaddurbin]

no imo urs are really bad and look nothing like a modern williams auto.

on the '54 gpc the "ted" looks simplified while the "williams" look overly ornate compared to others...but one of the reasons i purchased the gpc because i was banking on the fact it's not very likely to be forged. of course i could be wrong.

[chaddurbin]

hey hey...i was thinking since the gpc is not likely forged, maybe it was secretarial or a clubhouse? and i found the below from our own board.

jon c...this was originally your scan, have a follow up for us? original thread where jon says the seller told him the family got the auto in person.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=125349

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

no imo urs are really bad and look nothing like a modern williams auto.

on the '54 gpc the "ted" looks simplified while the "williams" look overly ornate compared to others...but one of the reasons i purchased the gpc because i was banking on the fact it's not very likely to be forged. of course i could be wrong.

You almost never find a postmarked forged GPC that is true.
But on this one I lean towards it being secretarial.
Zip's analysis was a good one and this Williams just does not look right in several different ways.
And yes that group of three are painfully bad.
Darren, did you say you got them through the mail??
If so, Ted must have been breaking in a new ghost signer, who did not last very long.
They do not look like the usual TTM Ted Williams autographs.
And no Zip I won't haul out my Mona Lisa Ted on this thread. .

ps. dating the sig. would not be out of the norm, I don't consider that to be a deciding factor.

[canjond]

The 50 Bowman Williams pictured above is mine. I never figured out more info on it, nor ever paid to have PSA or JSA tell me their thoughts! I did get it from an original collection from the 1950s. All of the autos were supposedly obtained in-person by a young collector, and I have seen a great number from the collection slabbed. In the event the Williams is not good, it was certainly clubhouse then, since I doubt there was any malice involved (ie, it wasn't forged).

[chaddurbin]

thx for chiming in richard and jon. too bad you never got anything definitive J. i guess "in-person" could've been a number of things to that family if the auto is bad, and i don't think it was malicious either.

mark (OP) i would certainly take the gpc back if you have any doubt.

[bender07]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

thx for chiming in richard and jon. too bad you never got anything definitive J. i guess "in-person" could've been a number of things to that family if the auto is bad, and i don't think it was malicious either.

mark (OP) i would certainly take the gpc back if you have any doubt.

I'll take you up on your offer. Pm me your address.

[bender07]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

You almost never find a postmarked forged GPC that is true.
But on this one I lean towards it being secretarial.
Zip's analysis was a good one and this Williams just does not look right in several different ways.
And yes that group of three are painfully bad.
Darren, did you say you got them through the mail??
If so, Ted must have been breaking in a new ghost signer, who did not last very long.
They do not look like the usual TTM Ted Williams autographs.
And no Zip I won't haul out my Mona Lisa Ted on this thread. .

ps. dating the sig. would not be out of the norm, I don't consider that to be a deciding factor.

Thanks for the insight Richard. Any thoughts on the 41 Play Ball?

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by bender07

Thanks for the insight Richard. Any thoughts on the 41 Play Ball?

I always hate to say this,,, but if you had sent me a check to authenticate this, I would probably send you the check back and say I cannot say yes or no. It happens about two or three times a year. (I don't do the volume that the big two do, I am the boutique authenticator, and you can always get me on the phone as opposed to them).
I trust my exemplar file and I have one or two with some similarities to your sig incl. that W, but there are a couple of causes for concern.
The one thing I lack is a good AP from right around 1940, which would clarify this. I buy albums regularly but never got one with a circa early 1940 sig of him.

[RichardSimon]

Shown this before but take a look again:
1949 exemplar, earliest one that I have that I can date with certainty, used to own the full piece.
Insurance document signature.

ps. don't call or write between 1-4 today. Will be watching the Rangers beat the Devils,, . (not at game, on TV).

[steve B]

From baseball reference FWIW.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/te...e-scores.shtml

On Sept 8, 1954 Boston played Detroit at Detroit. They were in the middle of a road trip that ran from Sept 3-19.

Of course, the previous game was in NY on the 6th, so someone could have mailed it for him if they went back to to Boston from NY. (Doubleheader, so maybe the NYPO was closed after the game ended?)

Steve B

[bender07]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

I always hate to say this,,, but if you had sent me a check to authenticate this, I would probably send you the check back and say I cannot say yes or no. It happens about two or three times a year. (I don't do the volume that the big two do, I am the boutique authenticator, and you can always get me on the phone as opposed to them).
I trust my exemplar file and I have one or two with some similarities to your sig incl. that W, but there are a couple of causes for concern.
The one thing I lack is a good AP from right around 1940, which would clarify this. I buy albums regularly but never got one with a circa early 1940 sig of him.

Richard - FYI I forwarded a note to regarding the 41's potential authenticity.

[bender07]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

I always hate to say this,,, but if you had sent me a check to authenticate this, I would probably send you the check back and say I cannot say yes or no. It happens about two or three times a year. (I don't do the volume that the big two do, I am the boutique authenticator, and you can always get me on the phone as opposed to them).
I trust my exemplar file and I have one or two with some similarities to your sig incl. that W, but there are a couple of causes for concern.
The one thing I lack is a good AP from right around 1940, which would clarify this. I buy albums regularly but never got one with a circa early 1940 sig of him.

Originally Posted by bender07

Richard - FYI I forwarded a note to regarding the 41's potential authenticity.

Just to close the loop on the 41 Play Ball Williams, the card was obtained from Jim Stinson (another great dealer in the industry like Richard) and his opinion is that it's an authentic pre-military Williams. He has a vast experience with Williams' autograph so I feel comfortable.

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by bender07

Just to close the loop on the 41 Play Ball Williams, the card was obtained from Jim Stinson (another great dealer in the industry like Richard) and his opinion is that it's an authentic pre-military Williams. He has a vast experience with Williams' autograph so I feel comfortable.

Mark, I'd like to have Jim take a look at a signature of Ted from 1939 that's in dispute. Can you PM me with his info or how I can go about contacting him?

Thanks.

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Attachment 63853

In another thread I posted the Teddy Williams I got through the mail years ago, wondering if they were authentic. Your bottom one there has the same interconnected "dW" as mine do. The plot thickens...

Those three are painfully fake.

[GrayGhost]

Originally Posted by Splinte1941

Those three are painfully fake.

Sadly, I agree on that.

Ted's auto varied so much. Most of those others have a lot of good qualities, but I'll defer overall, due to their variances.

GPC's could still be secretarial, esp of a player like Ted, who got sooo many requests, for sure. not saying that one is, or isn't, and those others have similar "W", so thats more of a shot that its good.

[Bilko G]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Your bottom one there has the same interconnected "dW" as mine do. The plot thickens...

His doesn't interconnect like yours, they are just written over each other.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Bilko G

His doesn't interconnect like yours, they are just written over each other.

Huh?? What am I missing?

Screen Shot 2012-05-19 at 11.44.04 PM.jpg

[bender07]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Huh?? What am I missing?

Attachment 64010

Yours aren't even close unfortunately.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by bender07

Yours aren't even close unfortunately.

He clearly said, "His doesn't interconnect like yours, they are just written over each other." Yet that is blatantly untrue. Does anybody tell the truth in these forums...ever???

[scmavl]

Darren,
I agree with what you're talking about, it is connected the same. That is not the way Ted normally signed though and as a few others have said, yours do not seem to be true Williams unfortunately.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by scmavl

Darren,
I agree with what you're talking about, it is connected the same. That is not the way Ted normally signed though and as a few others have said, yours do not seem to be true Williams unfortunately.

I can appreciate your thoughts on this, because you're giving reasons why you think my signature is not authentic. I'm all on board for that type of reason. But it bothers the living heck out of me when people just blatantly lie in their 'opinions.'

My motivation is obvious. I want the signatures to be real, because they are mine. But when people are lying to try to convince me otherwise? What's the motivation there?

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

He clearly said, "His doesn't interconnect like yours, they are just written over each other." Yet that is blatantly untrue. Does anybody tell the truth in these forums...ever???

I don't claim to be an expert. But...."His doesn't interconnect like yours" is a TRUE statement. I don't believe he is saying one does and one does not interconnect. I believe he means the authentic signature interconnects at the TOP of the d and yours connect from the BOTTOM. I'm sure an apology is in order.....