Quote:
Originally Posted by bravos4evr
the ruth is decent enough to fool someone who just has a casual knowledge of what his signature looks like. But one of the ways to judge a forgery is the flow of the letters from one to the next. When you sign your name , you don't think about how you do it, you just do it. Forgers have to make an effort to try and get as close as they can. (this link gives more information of what I am referring to)- http://www.questioneddocuments.com/s...tures-forgery/
Take late Ted Williams signatures for example, post stroke, they look different than his other, earlier signatures, but are equally authentic (if less visually appealing) but they still have a visual flow that shows it was signed quickly and casually. |
I know what "flow" means when it comes to autographs, but thanks for the lesson anyway.
What I meant was that in judging the autographs one never would get to considering flow. Character formation is so bad that the signatures would be ruled out immediately.