Situational differences in signatures?

[steve B]

I'm pretty much learning autographs, I have a few but not many most I got myself or from a source I trust.

But I've had this question for a while and figured it was finally time to ask since the Mathewson thread made me think about it again.

My own signature varies a lot depending on the situation and what I'm signing. So if I'm signing for a package or a credit card slip, it's a nearly unreadable scribble, checks are a bit more legible and more formal documents are a bit nicer. It took a conscious effort to speed up for the bank signature card so it would look like a check.
Table, clipboard or a loose bit of paper in hand makes a difference too.

How common is this?

The Mathewson book thread made me think of it because personally if I was signing a bunch of bookplates I'd be using the slower "official document" method instead of the scribble.

I may be odd, but when I was younger I attempted signing a ball or two just for fun. (Used them pretty much right after) And it was much harder than just writing. And didn't resemble my normal writing at all.
I suppose modern players get a ton of practice, but back when signing balls wasn't typical could that have affected what a ball players signature looked like?

Steve B

[frankbmd]

My signature devolved during 31 years of practice from a reasonably legible representation of my name with all the letters (like the ball players of the 70s) to a barely recognizable capital B with a down stroke k and a cross for two "t"s that otherwise weren't there (like the ball players of today)...

but I still can't hit a curve ball.

[scooter729]

I grew up in the '80s collecting autographs in person around Boston, so I obtained thousands of signatures in person from people like Jim Rice, Wayne Gretzky, Larry Bird and tons more, which look nothing like the signatures people are used to seeing. Mine were often signed while players were getting out of their cars and rushing into stadiums, vs sitting at a show table and taking their time (and getting paid).

Would my signatures pass authentication? Maybe, maybe not, who knows? But they are 100% legit and I know it, and that's good enough for me while they reside in my collection.

[mr2686]

Autographs are always situational whether it's what's being signed, when it's signed, how rushed the person is, etc.
If you go to a 2 hour signing and you get a ball signed within the first few minutes, I doubt it will look exactly like the ones that are signed at the 2 hour mark. With that said, even a rushed sig will show some of the same tendencies and authenticators take this in to consideration and look for exemplars from certain situations. There are times, however, when a player just signed different...the pen slipped, grip on the pen was wrong, he was not feeling well, the list goes on and on. People don't understand how an expert will say an autograph is bad when they got it in person, but if the signer has signed "differently", how is even an expert to know. They can only go by known examples. A few months before Dick Williams passed away, I was fortunate to get him to sign my Hall of Fame book. As he got to the K in his first name, his glasses slipped and he stopped. The result is a sig that's doesn's look like any other Dick Williams that I've seen. That's ok, because I know he signed it, but someone else might not think it's good...although why would I forge a Dick Williams when I also have a nice Mantle and Dimaggio in the same book.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by scooter729

I grew up in the '80s collecting autographs in person around Boston, so I obtained thousands of signatures in person from people like Jim Rice, Wayne Gretzky, Larry Bird and tons more, which look nothing like the signatures people are used to seeing. Mine were often signed while players were getting out of their cars and rushing into stadiums, vs sitting at a show table and taking their time (and getting paid).

Would my signatures pass authentication? Maybe, maybe not, who knows? But they are 100% legit and I know it, and that's good enough for me while they reside in my collection.

I would have to agree with Scott on this one. I spent much of the 1970's chasing Nolan Ryan around Anaheim Stadium getting his autograph over 100 times in person (Yes, I am a confirmed ex-stalker! ).

The differences in Nolan's signature as a case in point is absolutely amazing when you compare the sit down version and the "over the railing", rushed version. Please see my examples below to illustrate the point. Nolan knocked out both of these in person in the 1970's at Anaheim Stadium. He was sitting at a table when he signed the 1972 team postcard (signed 1973), and he signed the era photo over the railing during 1977 or 1978.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by mr2686

Autographs are always situational whether it's what's being signed, when it's signed, how rushed the person is, etc.
If you go to a 2 hour signing and you get a ball signed within the first few minutes, I doubt it will look exactly like the ones that are signed at the 2 hour mark. With that said, even a rushed sig will show some of the same tendencies and authenticators take this in to consideration and look for exemplars from certain situations. There are times, however, when a player just signed different...the pen slipped, grip on the pen was wrong, he was not feeling well, the list goes on and on. People don't understand how an expert will say an autograph is bad when they got it in person, but if the signer has signed "differently", how is even an expert to know. They can only go by known examples. A few months before Dick Williams passed away, I was fortunate to get him to sign my Hall of Fame book. As he got to the K in his first name, his glasses slipped and he stopped. The result is a sig that's doesn's look like any other Dick Williams that I've seen. That's ok, because I know he signed it, but someone else might not think it's good...although why would I forge a Dick Williams when I also have a nice Mantle and Dimaggio in the same book.

Excellent points, Mike!

[David Atkatz]

Two genuine Gehrigs from the same time period:

[clutch]

I was surprised to see this thread because I was pondering the exact same thing recently and was thinking about starting my own thread about it.

Sometimes the thrill of victory of getting an autograph is followed by the agony of defeat when looking at the signature and seeing a pile of scribble.

I wonder if third party authenticators carry "rushed" exemplars of autographs? The kind given out when the athlete is consumed by a mob and just wants to go back to the hotel and eat dinner.

I've submitted a few of these types of autographs when life was happening and I needed the money. Some were rejected even though I knew they were real.

I wasn't really too upset. I guess I would rather have these companies reject these types of autographs rather than pass everything that "might" be genuine.

[MooseDog]

Reggie Jackson was a notable star who has distinctively different signatures based on where arend when. I no longer have exemplars but when I was a kid getting in person autos I saw them all.

When he sat in his car and signed you got a nice full Reggie Jackson signature. If he signed on the run you got a RegJack or Reggie J scribble.

Also seems that post 1990 or so a tendency for players to shorten their signatures over time. For example Cal Ripken Jr started out signing his full name with nearly every letter visible...these days one is likely to get CalRiJ

Gretzky had a really nice signature for many years but most of his retirement IP sigs I've seen are a mess.

I know useless without pictures but I sold off much of my collection and the rest is in storage.

[JimStinson]

Anyone who authenticates autographs for money should be familier with the variances but unfortunately many are not. But as I had mentiioned in a previous thread even the players themselves sometimes don;t recognize the difference. A handwritten note and signature penned by Hank Aaron two weeks into his major league career was shown to him at a show and he claimed to "never have signed it" , yet a study of known authentic examples from the same time period proves him wrong.
______________________________
Vintage autographs for sale daily pm me to recieve e-mail updates

[Exhibitman]

So if autographs have significant situational variance and authentication is more of an art than a science why do so many of us get our knickers in a twist over disputable signatures [and I don't mean the garbage Roaches' Corner sells].