Quote:
Originally Posted by Runscott
David, since no one else is responding to your post, I'll take the bait.
Are you being facetious, or do you really believe that Nash has made a valid point?;i.e-do you think that balls with spacing between the 'L' and 'G' and with fully-formed 'u's are more likely to be forgeries?
|
I was not being facetious at all. Agree or disagree, right or wrong, Nash presents an hypothesis that can be subjected to further test.
That's the way it's done.
Do I agree? Not completely, but he may be on to something. Here's a genuine mid-late thirties Gehrig in which the "L" and the "G" do not touch, but, as in the genuine examples Nash shows, there is no final upstroke in the "u":
So, it fulfills one of the criteria for "genuineness," as presented, but fails the other. Going through my files, I can't find a genuine Gehrig that violates
both criteria.