[MantleBham]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Teaching a particular autograph is not easy, but I think a process exists for 'learning' to validate any autograph;e.g-early 1950's Mantles or late-career Ruths or quickly-signed Gehrigs. You need to study, study, study, analyzing consciously what you learn after each 'lesson', then testing your memory every now and then. In each 'lesson' you learn something new and these learning points become part of your unconscious so that as you see examples of the autograph in question you are better able to unconsciously decide if it is good or not. If you can't decide quickly then it's probably a candidate for a new 'lesson';i.e-try to find similar examples, look at what's good and bad, decide if the autograph is good or bad, consciously consider what you have learned, letting your unconscious absorb the 'lesson'. You only become expert on that particular autograph over time, as the lessons sink in.

Trying to teach someone the above about a single autograph in one post is really impossible. For really bad ones you can point things out that make sense, but for others, like the above - they pass all your tests, but are obvious forgeries to experts like the guys above who responded to you. They didn't get this knowledge from someone in a single post.

Of course they didn’t. I’m not a simpleton. Was just hoping to learn something.