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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[Runscott]

The Cy Young stands out most clearly to me as bad, for the same reasons I gave in a discussion on Cy Young autographs over a year ago - I'll have to go dig up that thread to verify, but it appears to be the same forger.

[perezfan]

Scott.... If you can dig it out, that would be great... thx.

[ss]

I agree with David that the Ruth is the worst. But they all look drawn.

[daves_resale_shop]

First off Really surprised there wasn't a Matty among the bunch...

The final tallies are in:
Bresnahan: $800
Ruth: $750
Young: $475
Johnson: $400
Cobb: $400
Wagner: $250
Collins: $190
Lajoie: $170


Crazy to think that this amount of money was spent on a bunch of junk...

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Scott.... If you can dig it out, that would be great... thx.

Mark, I found the old thread. It's similar, but this autograph actually looks better than the one in the old thread. In the old thread the tops of the 'u' and 'n' in 'Young' are rounded.

Cy Young index card

[perezfan]

Ok- thanks Scott...

Interesting that most sold for 40 - 50% of what you'd see legit examples realizing at auction. Cobb and Johnson went higher than that, but otherwise it was consistent across the board. Too bad

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by perezfan

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.

I agree as well. This looks like a later version of "Cy", FWIW.
Presented with the other autographs it must be a pretty good fake...

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

I agree as well. This looks like a later version of "Cy", FWIW.
Presented with the other autographs it must be a pretty good fake...

Does anyone have a 'Cy Young' cut or piece of paper like this with no other information (dates, etc.) that they are certain is 'real'?