Gehrig gpc

[Forever Young]

What are people's thoughts on this Government postcard? This is a VERY interesting item.

gehrigfront.jpggehrigback.jpg

[yanks12025]

Is it just the paper color or does it look like parts of the name have been erased and rewrote??

[GKreindler]

.

[bender07]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

What are people's thoughts on this Government postcard? This is a VERY interesting item.

Attachment 76031Attachment 76032

Seems odd that there are two postage stamps. One from Boston on Aug 2nd and the other from the Bronx on Aug 4th? The Bronx one looks very crisp as well.

[JimStinson]

According to the Baseball Almanac the Yankees were not in Boston on those dates. Begining August 1st until August 8th. They played the Browns, White Sox and Cleveland all at Yankee stadium. The 9th was a travel day to Boston where they played 4 games against the Sox 8/11-8/12.
_____________________
Vintage baseball autographs for sale on my e-mail updates , Don't miss out pm me to be added to my autograph e-mail updates

[baseballart]

Originally Posted by bender07

Seems odd that there are two postage stamps. One from Boston on Aug 2nd and the other from the Bronx on Aug 4th? The Bronx one looks very crisp as well.

I can't comment on the signature or on how postage stamps were used, but when I look at it, isn't the Boston stamp August 8 and not August 2, or are my eyes just particularly bad today?

Max

[JimStinson]

I thought the same thing that it might have been postmarked on the 8th from Boston , but even on the 8th the Yankees were still in NYC. Unless in 1937 Danbury CT didn;t have a post office and routed their mail through Boston
_____________________
Vintage baseball autographs for sale on my e-mail updates , Don't miss out pm me to be added to my autograph e-mail updates

[baseballart]

Is it possible there were two postmarks in the normal course? From August 4 to get it to Boston and on August 8 to get it to Danbury? (I know I should have been a philatelist).

Max

[JimStinson]

Yes, its absolutely possible that a GPC would have two postmarks , happens sometimes. But unless Lou elected to drive up to Boston after a game in NYC and then return it would not have been possible for him to be in two places at the same time. And he had that "consecutive game" thing he was working on too so he would not have missed a game to go up to Boston ahead of the team which did not arrive there until the 9th.
_______________________
Vintage baseball autographs for sale on my e-mail updates , Don't miss out pm me to be added to my autograph e-mail updates

[David Atkatz]

The postmark is certainly August 2nd (my birthday!), when the Yanks were in St. Louis.
Further, there are unambiguous signs of the writing being forged. An excellent forgery, to be sure, but a forgery nonetheless.

[JimStinson]

Unless the Almanac is wrong the Yanks were in NYC on the 2nd. But in order for any of it to make sense the 1st postmark (from NYC) would have had to preceed the later.
________________
Vintage baseball autographs for sale on my e-mail updates , Don't miss out pm me to be added to my autograph e-mail updates

[bender07]

Originally Posted by JimStinson

Unless the Almanac is wrong the Yanks were in NYC on the 2nd. But in order for any of it to make sense the 1st postmark (from NYC) would have had to preceed the later.
________________
Vintage baseball autographs for sale on my e-mail updates , Don't miss out pm me to be added to my autograph e-mail updates

The postmark issue seems odd in that why would a forger even mess with that when there's one on the address side? Any thoughts on the autograph itself?

[David Atkatz]

Jim, the Yanks were in St. Louis on August 1, and in Chicago on August 3. August 2 was a travel day. Check it yourself:

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/team...p?y=1937&t=NYA

Besides, there are "tells' in the signature itself.

[JimStinson]

I AM looking at it ...from 7/27 till 8/8 the Yanks were at home. In answer to the 2nd question about disregarding the postmarks to instead focus on the autograph would be like saying..OK its postmarked 1942 but does Gehrig's signature look real ? The postmarks and any other intangibles are as important as the signature in my opinion
________________________
Vintage baseball autographs for sale on my e-mail updates , Don't miss out pm me to be added to my autograph e-mail updates

[David Atkatz]

OOps--my mistake. They were at home.

[David Atkatz]

OK. The Yanks were at home during the stated period. But it was mailed from Boston, not NY.
There are characteristics of the signature, however, that are very rarely--if ever--seen on a genuine Gehrig. Together, is that enough to disqualify it? I think so.

[JimStinson]

I haven;t even GOTTEN to the signature yet and I have disqualified it , On that we can agree
________________
Vintage baseball autographs for sale on my e-mail updates , Don't miss out pm me to be added to my autograph e-mail updates

[steve B]

The postmark on the stamp side would be from the city the card was mailed from.
The postmark on the back would be the recieing post offices mark, some places used one that actually said "recieved".

And that makes a bunch of stuff wrong. Mail from NYC to Danbury wouldn't normally have been sent to Boston first. Danbury is actually closer to NYC than Boston and directly on one of the major rail routes.
A postcard mailed from NY to Danbury typically would have been delivered the next day.

So either the card was sent from NY to Danbury and forwarded to Boston without getting a Danbury reciever mark OR more likely was sent from NY to Boston and originally had a pencil address and message.

So the address is probably fake too.

Steve B

[David Atkatz]

The card could not have been sent from NY. The NY postmark is dated Aug 4, while the Boston postmark is Aug 2,
I doubt very much the card was received before it was sent.
(Unless, of course, it traveled faster-than-light.)

[canjond]

Guys - I don't think the front and back are the same GPC. Look at the heavy crease in the upper left corner of the signature side. That crease is missing on the address side of the scan (should be right around where the postage is). My guess - 2 different GPCs, hence two different cancellations.

[Forever Young]

Holy sh*t am I a moron. I am so sorry guys.. talk about an impossible task to give proper advise. Below is the correct back. I really do not know what to say other than I am sorry. I had an email with a ton of gpc front and backs from this seller. I simply copied them wrong and didn't catch it. I did this stone sober...which is troubling. Just goes to show how important it is seeing a piece in person I guess. Let this be a lesson to you all.... LOL. God, did I mention I was an idiot?? Again.. sorry guys.

gehrigback7.jpg

[canjond]

Knowing what we now know, I'm going out on a limb here and saying the auto may be authentic. There are aspects of the writing I really like. That said, I would greatly value the opinions of others who have posted and would factor those in if I was considering purchasing.

[yanks12025]

Can someone explain to why they would stamp it twice within 45 minutes?

[canjond]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

Can someone explain to why they would stamp it twice within 45 minutes?

My guess would be the beginning and end of the processing.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by canjond

Knowing what we now know, I'm going out on a limb here and saying the auto may be authentic. There are aspects of the writing I really like. That said, I would greatly value the opinions of others who have posted and would factor those in if I was considering purchasing.

Jon,

My gut was it was good. Because of this, I was interested and had the guy send me scans of the back. I was then confused. I sent it to Mr. David Atkatz on here for his opinion. He initially thought it was good too until I confused him and send him the back. It is pretty tough(near impossible) not to second guess yourself when the back was thought to be fact. So... I thought I would post it on here thinking it was odd. I cannot believe I didn't catch something as simple as a large crease... haha. Anyway, I have had another highly respected member(autograph expert) here PM me and tell me he thought it was good as well. Based on the feedback I have received in PM and comparing to other exemplars(a 1937 gpc on ebay for example), it appears to be authentic. I apologize again for the confusion.

Ben

[CW]

IF that item is truly authentic then I would love to own it, also having the first name Charles. Cool piece (if real)!

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by canjond

Knowing what we now know, I'm going out on a limb here and saying the auto may be authentic. There are aspects of the writing I really like. That said, I would greatly value the opinions of others who have posted and would factor those in if I was considering purchasing.

Me too Jon, I am thinking it is good as well.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by canjond

My guess would be the beginning and end of the processing.

Close.

One of the first steps is canceling. These days they have a machine called a facer/canceller that senses the flourescent ink on the stamp and turns all the mail the right way up then cancels. somewhere in excess of 10,000 pieces an hour.

Back then it was done by hand and sometimes something would get in the machine backwards. Usually they found them during the next step- sorting. Then they'd either cancel it by hand or put it back in the pile to be run through again.

Steve B

[canjond]

Ben - it's a sweet postcard for sure assuming it is authentic (and again, I'm in the authentic camp). However, I thought David was of the opinion it's no good, even postmark aside. I believe above he felt that there were unambiguous signs of the writing being forged?

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

I apologize again for the confusion.

Ben

Troublemaker.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by canjond

Ben - it's a sweet postcard for sure assuming it is authentic (and again, I'm in the authentic camp). However, I thought David was of the opinion it's no good, even postmark aside. I believe above he felt that there were unambiguous signs of the writing being forged?

Jon, when I first saw the pc, I thought it was good, but wanted to see the reverse. When I saw the "reverse," it "proved that the card had to be a forgery. There is one characteristic of the signature that appears quite rarely in a genuine signature, but it does appear occasionally. Since--based on the reverse--it "had" to be a forgery, I convinced myself that that one "anomaly" was enough.

It isn't enough. I believe the card is good.

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Jon, when I first saw the pc, I thought it was good, but wanted to see the reverse. When I saw the "reverse," it "proved that the card had to be a forgery. There is one characteristic of the signature that appears quite rarely in a genuine signature, but it does appear occasionally. Since--based on the reverse--it "had" to be a forgery, I convinced myself that that one "anomaly" was enough.

It isn't enough. I believe the card is good.

like

[canjond]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Jon, when I first saw the pc, I thought it was good, but wanted to see the reverse. When I saw the "reverse," it "proved that the card had to be a forgery. There is one characteristic of the signature that appears quite rarely in a genuine signature, but it does appear occasionally. Since--based on the reverse--it "had" to be a forgery, I convinced myself that that one "anomaly" was enough.

It isn't enough. I believe the card is good.

Thanks for the clarification David.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Jon,

My gut was it was good. Because of this, I was interested and had the guy send me scans of the back. I was then confused. I sent it to Mr. David Atkatz on here for his opinion. He initially thought it was good too until I confused him and send him the back. It is pretty tough(near impossible) not to second guess yourself when the back was thought to be fact. So... I thought I would post it on here thinking it was odd. I cannot believe I didn't catch something as simple as a large crease... haha. Anyway, I have had another highly respected member(autograph expert) here PM me and tell me he thought it was good as well. Based on the feedback I have received in PM and comparing to other exemplars(a 1937 gpc on ebay for example), it appears to be authentic. I apologize again for the confusion.

Ben

I was the one who contacted Ben a few days ago and opined that the Gehrig was authentic.

Although I appreciate Ben calling me an expert, I am certainly not an expert.

My first thought when I looked at that Gehrig was that it is absolutely authentic. I always trust my first look (instinct) at an autograph, and I liked that Gehrig immediately.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

My first thought when I looked at that Gehrig was that it is absolutely authentic. I always trust my first look (instinct) at an autograph, and I liked that Gehrig immediately.

While I admire your confidence, I would never "always" do anything. Except doubt my first impression until I've "proved" my opinion to my satisfaction. Which may still be incorrect, btw.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by Deertick

While I admire your confidence, I would never "always" do anything. Except doubt my first impression until I've "proved" my opinion to my satisfaction. Which may still be incorrect, btw.

I trust my "eye" more than anything else.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

I was the one who contacted Ben a few days ago and opined that the Gehrig was authentic.

Although I appreciate Ben calling me an expert, I am certainly not an expert.

My first thought when I looked at that Gehrig was that it is absolutely authentic. I always trust my first look (instinct) at an autograph, and I liked that Gehrig immediately.

Chris, do you still believe the signature to be athentic?

Ben

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Chris, do you still believe the signature to be athentic?

Ben

Yes I do, Ben.

[Forever Young]

Thank you all for your comments and help on this. I want to especially thank David and Chris for their time and expertise. Sorry again for the confusion. Jimmy, you are correct.. I am a trouble maker.

ps: Thank you Jon for catching my uploaded photo mistake and making me look like a fool! HAHA

[canjond]

Great piece Ben. Hope you get it (if you haven't already).