Genuine Babe Ruth Autographs

[Frozen in Time]

As some of you know, I do not really collect many autographs (a few early Mantle’s and that’s it) but rather specialize in Type 1 Mantle photos. So I am only a lowly student of autographs. Nevertheless, I continue to be fascinated by the many discussions on this forum relating to the different sets of criteria that individuals use for authentication.

This is particularly true when it comes to Babe Ruth and the recent slew of high-grade single-signed baseballs that have appeared in major auctions over the last decade or so. In that context, I was quite interested in the articles that have appeared in Hauls of Shame recently by Peter J. Nash and in particular: Operation Bambino Part 111: The "Real-Ruths" vs The "Record-Breakers" that first appeared in Dec 21,2011.

In that article, Mr. Nash posted the series of photographs shown below.

According to the article, the left-hand autographs are all thought to be genuine and the right-hand column illustrate alleged autographs on the sweet-spots of eleven of the most valuable Ruth balls in the hobby.

The article goes on to say - "In his 2002 signature study of Ruth’s autograph published in Sports Collectors Digest Keurajian made some important observations about Ruth’s handwriting in his own illustration pitting genuine Ruth signatures against forgeries." "Keurajian noted:
”Notice how the forged Ruth’s are level and exhibit no variation in height. The forgeries are signed in a methodical and calculated way. This is evidence of a slow and heavy hand. Now the genuine Ruth signatures bounce up-and-down. Heights vary and flowing loops are evident. When positioned right next to each other the differences are striking. Sometimes the differences in height can be subtle but they are always present. The variation in height is typically much more prominent when Ruth penned his name to a baseball.”

In addition to these observations (and many others that have been posted by members on this forum), I noticed one striking difference between the genuine autos on the left and the alleged autos on the right. In 11 of the 13 genuine autographs on the left, the line crossing the t in Ruth either extents to the left of the letter u or covers it completely. By contrast, only 3 of the 11 alleged Ruth autos on the right have the crossing horizontal line of the letter t that fully covers the u in Ruth.

I am interested in what some of the more experienced autograph collectors on the board think of this. Is this a valid difference that is also seen on other known forgeries and might be added to the list of criteria used for the consideration of authenticity? Or is it merely a reflection of the differences between autographs on flat items vs a ball? Or, perhaps, a product of my imagination?

Thanks.

Craig

[David Atkatz]

It's certainly not your imagination, Craig. What you say--regarding the samples above--is true. But I think it will take the examination of many more exemplars before you can conclude that it's a general characteristic of Ruth's signature.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

It's certainly not your imagination, Craig. What you say--regarding the samples above--is true. But I think it will take the examination of many more exemplars before you can conclude that it's a general characteristic of Ruth's signature.

Thank you David!!

[mschwade]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

As some of you know, I do not really collect many autographs (a few early Mantle’s and that’s it) but rather specialize in Type 1 Mantle photos. So I am only a lowly student of autographs. Nevertheless, I continue to be fascinated by the many discussions on this forum relating to the different sets of criteria that individuals use for authentication.

This is particularly true when it comes to Babe Ruth and the recent slew of high-grade single-signed baseballs that have appeared in major auctions over the last decade or so. In that context, I was quite interested in the articles that have appeared in Hauls of Shame recently by Peter J. Nash and in particular: Operation Bambino Part 111: The "Real-Ruths" vs The "Record-Breakers" that first appeared in Dec 21,2011.

In that article, Mr. Nash posted the series of photographs shown below.

According to the article, the left-hand autographs are all thought to be genuine and the right-hand column illustrate alleged autographs on the sweet-spots of eleven of the most valuable Ruth balls in the hobby.

The article goes on to say - "In his 2002 signature study of Ruth’s autograph published in Sports Collectors Digest Keurajian made some important observations about Ruth’s handwriting in his own illustration pitting genuine Ruth signatures against forgeries." "Keurajian noted:
”Notice how the forged Ruth’s are level and exhibit no variation in height. The forgeries are signed in a methodical and calculated way. This is evidence of a slow and heavy hand. Now the genuine Ruth signatures bounce up-and-down. Heights vary and flowing loops are evident. When positioned right next to each other the differences are striking. Sometimes the differences in height can be subtle but they are always present. The variation in height is typically much more prominent when Ruth penned his name to a baseball.”

In addition to these observations (and many others that have been posted by members on this forum), I noticed one striking difference between the genuine autos on the left and the alleged autos on the right. In 11 of the 13 genuine autographs on the left, the line crossing the t in Ruth either extents to the left of the letter u or covers it completely. By contrast, only 3 of the 11 alleged Ruth autos on the right have the crossing horizontal line of the letter t that fully covers the u in Ruth.

I am interested in what some of the more experienced autograph collectors on the board think of this. Is this a valid difference that is also seen on other known forgeries and might be added to the list of criteria used for the consideration of authenticity? Or is it merely a reflection of the differences between autographs on flat items vs a ball? Or, perhaps, a product of my imagination?

Thanks.

Craig

Good obvervation Craig, and just went and checked my Ruth and it, too, covered the entire u. But, as you point out, mine is a flat so I am not sure if it holds water.

[Runscott]

There is another characteristic that is even more blatantly different between the 2 columns, and it involves the 'B' (and it's 11 out of 11)

[Frozen in Time]

Thanks Matt. Scott I think I see what you mean about the B's - very consistent in the alleged grouping.

[BrandonG]

Can you really make a comparison from paper written signatures and baseballs? I'm not saying those aren't fake, but always wondered why some people would use authentic paper written signatures and compare them to baseballs. The writing method would seem substantially different.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by BrandonG

Can you really make a comparison from paper written signatures and baseballs? I'm not saying those aren't fake, but always wondered why some people would use authentic paper written signatures and compare them to baseballs. The writing method would seem substantially different.

I was thinking the same thing. Why no signed balls in the left column? Surely there have to be some verified exemplars on balls.

Also, I could be mistaken, but it appears some of the images of the balls on the right have been "flattened," which could lead to further distortion.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by BrandonG

Can you really make a comparison from paper written signatures and baseballs? I'm not saying those aren't fake, but always wondered why some people would use authentic paper written signatures and compare them to baseballs. The writing method would seem substantially different.

It isn't substantially different at all. One's handwriting is one's handwriting. And the amazing thing is that it is independent of the set of muscles being used.

As a research physicist and professor, I have spent the largest portion of my life writing on blackboards, using my arm and shoulder muscles, rather than my hand and wrist muscles. Yet my large writing on the board is identical to my small writing on paper--and this holds true for all I have seen. The characteristics that define one's handwriting, are, as we physicists would say, invariant.

[mschwade]

Originally Posted by Runscott

There is another characteristic that is even more blatantly different between the 2 columns, and it involves the 'B' (and it's 11 out of 11)

Wow, wasn't noticeable until you gave the hint and now is totally obvious. Glad to say mine checks out again

[David Atkatz]

Hundreds? Methinks you exaggerate. (By about two orders of magnitude.)
I have no idea why a few printed. And neither do you.
There's been a lot of talk that signatures are different on balls. But no one has shown an example of how a particular signer's signature differs--in a consistent way--between flats and baseballs.
There's a reason for that.
It doesn't.

[prewarsports]

Christy Mathewson signed baseballs different than paper

Hugh Jennings signed a baseball different depending on the day of the week. Half the time he printed his name.

Ever seen Earl Hamiltons signature on anything? I've owned 3 on Baseballs and 5 on paper. He had a nice signature when he signed on paper and he printed his name on Baseballs.

I have also included some scans of others. Look at them.

Ever seen a Bressler like that on paper?

Eddie Collins signed differently early in his career on baseballs, Probably because its hard to sign a baseball.

Bender didn't always sign like that on Baseballs or paper.

Why did Paddy Livingston print his name, thats not what his signature looks like.

etc. etc. I could come up with 100 in a few days if I felt it was worth my time or it would make a bit of difference.

I never said Ruth "Consistantly" signed Baseballs different than paper, I only say that the factor DOES EXIST so why compare ALL paper autographs to ALL Baseball signed autographs, thats it!

Not going to bother taking this any further. "Methinks" it wouldn't matter anyways so why waste my time. I feel that way a lot on this forum.

Have a nice debate guys!

[ss]

Actually, it was hundreds. This is silly. Pick up a ball, sign it, and look at the difference.

[Runscott]

Since we are talking about Ruth, why not just compare some real paper sigs to some real ball sigs? Surely all the Ruth experts on this forum can come up with 3-4 real ones of each?

With thousands of Ruth signatures out there, each going for thousands, if they can't come up with 3-4 of each, the 'forged Ruth' problem is even more serious than I thought.

[BrandonG]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Since we are talking about Ruth, why not just compare some real paper sigs to some real ball sigs? Surely all the Ruth experts on this forum can come up with 3-4 real ones of each?

With thousands of Ruth signatures out there, each going for thousands, if they can't come up with 3-4 of each, the 'forged Ruth' problem is even more serious than I thought.

+1 (plus now I'm nervous about my ball)

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Since we are talking about Ruth, why not just compare some real paper sigs to some real ball sigs? Surely all the Ruth experts on this forum can come up with 3-4 real ones of each?

Yes, this should be done. But it's very important to compare signatures according to the (approximate) year signed. Ruth's signature changed over time--as do most people's--so it makes no sense to compare, say, a 1927-signed flat with a 1945- signed ball.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by ss

Actually, it was hundreds. This is silly. Pick up a ball, sign it, and look at the difference.

I have.
There's no difference.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Christy Mathewson signed baseballs different than paper

Did he now? How many genuinely Mathewson baseballs are there?

Ever seen Earl Hamiltons signature on anything? I've owned 3 on Baseballs and 5 on paper. He had a nice signature when he signed on paper and he printed his name on Baseballs.

So we don't know how is signature would differ--if at all--when actually signing a baseball.

I have also included some scans of others. Look at them.

I have. You've shown scans of signed baseballs. You've shown no comparisons of signature differences between flats and balls.

Not going to bother taking this any further. "Methinks" it wouldn't matter anyways so why waste my time. I feel that way a lot on this forum.

What's wrong? Someone disagrees with you? Present some compelling evidence, and you'll convince people. Arguments like "the fact that some printed their names proves that signatures on balls and flats differ" won't cut it.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

To me the most telling stroke is the stroke between the lower case a and b. this is a very subtle stroke. In the forgeries it tends to be short and bunched, almost curved.

A trick I learned a while ago is to look at autographs upside down. It's easier to tell the subtle differences that way.