[Runscott]

I know that the experts, other than David, don't like to comment on Ruth signatures, so I will throw my two cents in, having no reputation to possibly muddy:

I think it is real. The odd 'r' in 'George', which is not typical of that period, or of Ruth's writing, can be found in his early signatures and I have no reason to think that they are all bad. If I'm right no one will say a word. If I'm wrong, someone will drool all over themselves at the opportunity to publish my ignorance here in the forum. So I learn something either way.

Scott <== so crucify me