Ruth, Cobb, Young Cut Signatures

[Paulanthony]

Just Opinions

HOF.jpg
http://www.liveauctioneers.com/searc...+Gallery%22%29

[thetruthisoutthere]

Opinions?

After I stop laughing I will offer one.....

Yikes!!!

[thetruthisoutthere]

Love it that they all signed on that same lined paper.....

Geez.

[Sean1125]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Love it that they all signed on that same lined paper.....

Geez.

I can't even render an opinion on the autographs and that was the first thing I noticed...

I guess one of the main things stressed on these forums which is useful is that what a piece and group are signed on can rule out the autograph even if it is otherwise perfect.

[johnmh71]

The Cobb is a common forgery. I was not aware that the same forger did the other three until now.

[sccoe]

Shown separately I would say the Cobb and Wagner look "slow", very careful.

[ReefBlue]

I saw those a couple weeks ago as well...

If you had only been presented with any one of those sigs, what would make you say they're no good?

I'm nowhere near an expert, but they don't look horrible...


Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

[GrayGhost]

Originally Posted by ReefBlue

I saw those a couple weeks ago as well...

If you had only been presented with any one of those sigs, what would make you say they're no good?

I'm nowhere near an expert, but they don't look horrible...


Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

That is a fair question IMO

[David Atkatz]

The Ruth is the worst.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by ReefBlue

I saw those a couple weeks ago as well...

If you had only been presented with any one of those sigs, what would make you say they're no good?

I'm nowhere near an expert, but they don't look horrible...


Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

That's why the forgers and the sellers of forgeries are successful.

Forgeries like those are penned to have the appearance of looking authentic.

That's why, in my opinion, it is almost impossible to teach a collector about autographs, unless they are willing to take the time (on a daily basis) to train their eyes. It doesn't happen overnight.

[ReefBlue]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

That's why the forgers and the sellers of forgeries are successful.

Forgeries like those are penned to have the appearance of looking authentic.

That's why, in my opinion, it is almost impossible to teach a collector about autographs, unless they are willing to take the time (on a daily basis) to train their eyes. It doesn't happen overnight.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I've got a great friend/resource who I sent all those pics a couple weeks ago.

'do you think these sigs are good'

'no'

I get he is busy, and his advice isn't costing me anything, etc., but the problem is no other information tends to get provided when an opinion is asked for--why aren't they good, what is it about them? Of course my standard disclaimer--no one is under any obligation to teach me this stuff, so I don't want to come off like people owe me things.

I'm certainly no dope, I could learn this stuff pretty easy if there was somewhere I could go to learn what I'm looking at (or for)--strokes, direction of pen travel, ink density, etc. I like the answer--the signature looks 'slow'.

I read one article about how a forgery was determined because the signature appeared to be written/drawn backwards (right to left). Until I read that article, it would never occur to me to look for something like that, but now I know that is a thing.

But If I get a simple 'no', the next time I see some sigs offered, I'm going to end up asking the same question again.

Fun stuff though.

[jhs5120]

I'm new to pre-war autographs, but this is what I saw:

Besides the same piece of note paper!

The Ruth I immediately skipped over, that "B" looks horrendous and the "be" looked forced.

"Ty" looks really bad, I don't like the flow, slant or seperation of any of the pen marks and the "C" looks way to slow.

I'll be honest, I don't know much about Cy Young and I'm sure that one would have given me trouble.

The Wagner looks too slow and forced to me.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I'm new to pre-war autographs, but this is what I saw:

Besides the same piece of note paper!

The Ruth I immediately skipped over, that "B" looks horrendous and the "be" looked forced.

"Ty" looks really bad, I don't like the flow, slant or seperation of any of the pen marks and the "C" looks way to slow.

I'll be honest, I don't know much about Cy Young and I'm sure that one would have given me trouble.

The Wagner looks too slow and forced to me.

I was thinking the same... that Cy Young would certainly fool a lot of people (myself included), as is the best effort of the four.

[ReefBlue]

Originally Posted by GrayGhost

That is a fair question IMO

Could be from pages used as an autograph book that have been since cut up...

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2