A Real Shocker

[Runscott]

Sorry, but I had to

Autographs 101 - 'Signing Your Name'

Bottom is a 1923 Urban Shocker signature.
Top is a 1927.

Imagine, if you can, what it would feel like to write the 'b' on the bottom ball. Then imagine the same for the top ball.

Someone had a brain fart.

[GrayGhost]

I don't get it.

[isaac2004]

I think he is pointing out ow awful the b is on the top signature.

[cubsfan-budman]

I think the top "B" just looks really difficult to write. Unnatural.

[David Atkatz]

You're turning into a one-trick pony, Scott.

[Michael B]

Notice how the upstroke on the 'b' is straight, while the downstroke is bowed backwards. The upstroke and the back of the bowl of the 'b' look like one line when in true cursive the upstroke would be bowed forward and the downstroke would be a straight line down to the bottom of the bowl and crossing the upstroke. Appears that they got confused and did not know how to do a cursive b.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

You're turning into a one-trick pony, Scott.

If that were true, I guess your predictable rebuttals would make you my faithful sidekick.

Instead of taking little nips at my posts, why don't you say something of substance? Explain how the same person could have written both of the 'b's shown above.

And "it looks real to me" isn't useful. All decent forgeries look real.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Michael B

Notice how the upstroke on the 'b' is straight, while the downstroke is bowed backwards. The upstroke and the back of the bowl of the 'b' look like one line when in true cursive the upstroke would be bowed forward and the downstroke would be a straight line down to the bottom of the bowl and crossing the upstroke. Appears that they got confused and did not know how to do a cursive b.

See above, David.

(Thanks Michael)

[David Atkatz]

How could these signatures possibly be by the same person?

[Runscott]

Explain the 'b' in 'Urban', David

When you are done with that, go back and check the two Lazzeri signatures I posted in Chris' thread.

[David Atkatz]

When you explain the above. Letter-by-letter, like Michael did.

[David Atkatz]

I gave my opinion on that ball, Scott, and I stick by it.
IMHO--and those of many experienced with autographs--one who claims an autograph is no good because this or that particular letter is "wrong," doesn't know much about autographs.

Every letter in that first Gehrig is "wrong." (And so are the letter connections.) But it's good.

[Runscott]

Are you implying that one of the Shocker signatures was written in a hurry, but the other was carefully penned?

It really looks more like the someone tried to carefully forge the 1927 signature, but got confused when they got to the 'b'.

The Gehrig signatures don't exhibit those qualities at all, so I really don't get your point, other than you were trying to come up with something to deflect the question.

[David Atkatz]

Snarky comment removed.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

IMHO--and those of many experienced with autographs--one who claims an autograph is no good because this or that particular letter is "wrong," doesn't know much about autographs.

David, you really don't want to go there.

[David Atkatz]

Never mind.

[mighty bombjack]

Interesting. What's the provenance of the second auto?

[Runscott]

I deleted the content of this post, but to make it useful, as opposed to just wasting empty space.....

The two Gehrigs are completely different forms of his signature - not two signatures that look basically alike other than one horrible letter.

I don't know enough about Gehrig signatures to state that the 'quickly written' one is good, but I'm sure it is, since you say it is, and because it makes total sense that when someone writes quickly, their handwriting will look different.

In the case of the Shockers, I DO know which one is the fake. And it's not just 'single letter analysis'. You've seen my posts about autographs, and you know that isn't the way I think - my first post regarding the 'green' ball listed several characteristics that had nothing to do with single letters. In the 'Shocker' example, I chose the 'b' to illustrate a point about the way people write, and about the way they do not write.

[Runscott]

Okay...David.

Thanks for the note - I see what's happening, and my apologies. My posting the Lazzeri and Shocker signatures was NOT a shot at you. I can see how you would react the way you have, thinking I'm attacking you.

My problem is not with you, Chris, or anyone else who thinks this ball is good. It's not your jobs to authenticate the ball, or once authenticated, to sell it. My beef is with those people who are making money off of fellow-hobbyists, any way they can. It's sick.

We have a 'good' bad example in front of us, and yes, I'm going to beat it to death, one bite at a time. 'Gehrig' was the first bite, 'Lazzeri' was another, and 'Shocker' is the third. The ball itself was actually the first, but there are too many people who just look at it and think it looks good, despite the obvious problems. So yeah, I picked a few autographs that could easily be ripped to pieces based on really bad letters.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

My beef is with those people who are making money off of fellow-hobbyists, any way they can.

+1

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

Interesting. What's the provenance of the second auto?

I picked the second one solely because it came from a ball that was sold in the same auction as the green ball. Whether it's also a fake or not, it at least illustrates how a normal human being (and Urban Shocker) writes a 'b'. If you need another for comparison, here's the one from David's ball - same normal 'b'.

But as David points out, analyzing each letter isn't the way to do this. We've already talked about the problems with the ball as a whole, so rather than beat a dead horse, I'm now simply beating at it's individual parts.