Christy Mathewson's signed edition of Won in the Ninth?

[baseballart]

Peter Nash has written an article stating that the signed copies of Mathewson's Won in the Ninth were not signed by him http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=9557



As a book collector with no expertise in autographs (I can barely recognize my own handwriting), I'd be interested in what people here think

Max

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by baseballart

Peter Nash has written an article stating that the signed copies of Mathewson's Won in the Ninth were not signed by him http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=9557



As a book collector with no expertise in autographs (I can barely recognize my own handwriting), I'd be interested in what people here think

Max

It's a point of contention and there are two camps, those that think he signed the bookplates, and those that think they are ghost signed. you have to look at evidence on both sides and decide what you think.

I have a hard time seeing that matty signed these. PSA and JSA cert them and auction houses sell them, but recently a couple auction houses have pulled them.

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by baseballart

Peter Nash has written an article stating that the signed copies of Mathewson's Won in the Ninth were not signed by him http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=9557



As a book collector with no expertise in autographs (I can barely recognize my own handwriting), I'd be interested in what people here think

Max

It isn't so much that Peter Nash wrote the article, in the article it states Ron Keurajian states he feels they aren't real, and that's good enough for me.

[RichardSimon]

I would also agree with Ron.

[steve B]

What I find interesting is that the known genuine Mathewson signatures show a lot of differences while the bookplates are very consistent. Maybe that's a strike against them, maybe not?

It makes me think of another question I've had that I think I'll ask in it's own thread as it's more general.

Steve B

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by steve B

What I find interesting is that the known genuine Mathewson signatures show a lot of differences while the bookplates are very consistent. Maybe that's a strike against them, maybe not?

It makes me think of another question I've had that I think I'll ask in it's own thread as it's more general.

Steve B

Yeah, this one perplexes me for the very reason that you have pinpointed: the signatures on these books that I have seen are very consistent and quite beautiful. Is that a point for or against them? It is pretty much a certainty that Mathewson never had an opportunity (aside from this one, if he did sign them) to write his name 500 times in a row. I like collecting signed books because the author usually is proud of he book and therefore takes time with a signature therein. Matty was well known as a gentleman and may well have been laborious in giving each of these bookplates his finest signature. Then again, a seasoned ghost signer can work magic with a fountain pen again and again.

Sorry for the mishmash of thoughts. Part of me is disappointed that there is mystery as to the authenticity of these because I would really love to own one some day. Not like the mystery will ever be solved...

Max, you own one of these, no?

[packs]

It seems like in every case of a signed copy of the book the Christy portion of the signature carries a crossed T in nearly the same spot on the letter. However, in the authentic exemplars of the signature posted on the site the T is crossed only sometimes, with many of the signatures not having a defined T, but carrying more of a general dash at the very very top where the T would be crossed. The Mathewson portion of the signature seems not to line up either. In most of the book signatures the TH in Mathewson are squished together. In the authentic examples there is a defined space between the TH in Mathewson, sort of like the Mantle M flick in Mantle.

[travrosty]

There are inconsistencies found on these bookplates that really cant be found elsewhere on exemplars both before and after these were purported to be signed.

The capital M in Mathewson normally points way back if you follow the beginning stroke backwards toward the name Christy. These bookplates have the first stroke in Mathewson point down right away if you follow it back, it doesn't make sense if you look at the historical record of his signature. he did this 500 times in a row, but both before and after he didn't seem to do it this way.

check out all the other exemplars siged in a similar time frame and other time frames and look a where the M points. How do 500 point down in an acute angle when almost all the other ones you see point way back over the top of the ty in Christy in the majority of them and over the y on the rest, but none fall short of the y like in the 400 or 500 examples he did for the bookplates?

[steve B]

Ok, but how does that work with the inconsistency in the ones shown that are good.
All of the ones with just the first initial are angled way down, probably part of the initial being combined with the last name.
Some Ts crossed at an angle, but one straight across
Some Ss in the last name tall but some short
some with sort of moon shaped lower loops, some very oval.
most Ns point right at the end, but one points straight down.
The Es are sometimes loops, sometimes points, and at least once, more like an uppercase E.
Some Cs taller than the H, some much shorter.


There's Got to be something more than one odd variance that the experts are seeing. Otherwise, I'd have to doubt many of the good ones too.

Note, I'm not saying that Someone whose opinion has a lot of respect is wrong, just that I'm not seeing what he might be seeing.

Steve B
Steve B

[travrosty]

yes, but those good ones show differences, but here and there, some have a difference here, some there, with different letters. These bookplates show a difference that doesnt seem to show up any other place, both before and after, only 400 in a row like that never to be seen again, or before. that's what makes it suspect.

other anomalies from the other good examplars can be found before and after, in other signatures signed in different places, under different circumstances. on letters and other pieces of paper. these are 400 in a row signed just one way we have never really seen before or since that signing. that's what makes it suspect. If he angled the M down sharply like that, why wouldn't he do that a few times after he signed these bookplates? signatures dont just take a big left turn like that and then revert to how they were signed before. that is my observation. i respect everyones opinion.

[baseballart]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

.

Max, you own one of these, no?

Wayne

I don't have a signed copy. I'd much rather have a dust jacketed copy of this book than a signed one, even with a legitimate signature

Max

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by travrosty

There are inconsistencies found on these bookplates that really cant be found elsewhere on exemplars both before and after these were purported to be signed.

The capital M in Mathewson normally points way back if you follow the beginning stroke backwards toward the name Christy. These bookplates have the first stroke in Mathewson point down right away if you follow it back, it doesn't make sense if you look at the historical record of his signature. he did this 500 times in a row, but both before and after he didn't seem to do it this way.

check out all the other exemplars siged in a similar time frame and other time frames and look a where the M points. How do 500 point down in an acute angle when almost all the other ones you see point way back over the top of the ty in Christy in the majority of them and over the y on the rest, but none fall short of the y like in the 400 or 500 examples he did for the bookplates?

Very good point, Travis! Thanks for the comparitive look at all the exemplars.