hal chase autograph question
 

So about a year ago I won the signed Hal Chase picture below on ebay. I bought it to go along with the original Sporting News photos I own that cover the 1941 issue regarding Hal. I just purchased today the actual sporting news issue (I actually had the week before) that shows my photos verbatim with the same trim and all. I noticed this issue shows the drawing that was signed. I did not follow through with the purchase after I got a LOT of feedback regarding it not being real. I also thought it looked a bit odd so I did not end up buying it.
I am wondering nowadays if it in fact was real? Ive never seen that drawing sold before on its own other then on the Sporting News advertisement that also would have came with the autographed drawing. Therefore I can assume that it ws originally with the photos I own that are on the front page. Im thinking there is a very good chance Hal would have signed it maybe was just having an off day on his signature (Ive signed by name the same way for 25 years and occasionally it will come off looking bad too). Also i havent gotten the sporting news paper yet bit I noticed it folds above where the autograph was so I can wait to see below the fold to see if the autograph was on the paper picture as well.
At any rate I really wanted to show off my photos as I dont have the autograph and see what everyone else thinks in light of the photos I own and the whole kittenkaboodle.
Attachment 99718

Attachment 99719

Attachment 99720

Attachment 99721

Attachment 99722

Attachment 99723

Attachment 99724

Attachment 99725

Just looked at every Chase exemplar I have--including two in my collection.
Still don't like that drawing.

Great photos, though!

Thanks! It'll be interesting to get the paper to see if the autograph was on it. Ill post it when I get it :)

Why do you think the autograph would be in the newspaper?

I think he is thinking that the drawing might have included an "autograph" that was put there originally by the artist. If this is the case then the drawing in the paper should reflect this "autograph".

If I am wrong on this assumption......then I apologize but that is just how I read it originally.

Yes on the drawing. The paper fold cuts off where the autograph is on the original drawing. Hopefully when I get the paper I can see the rest. If the autograph is there it would pretty much settle it for me that it was authentically signed by chase. My guess is that the paper would not of imo ncluded that part of the drawing though.

Hey, Sean It's not the same drawing. Look a bit closer.

Good eye david! I didn't notice his weist is gone in the one :)