Block Bros. Rogers Hornsby RPPC Autograph?
 

Is anyone familiar with this postcard? The stamp box seems to be period correct. I know what it says on it :cool: but my few searches didn't turn up a lot. And it's a good question here :)..
I found it in a pile of stuff I have.

That is a cool RPPC! I feel like I have seen it somewhere before (maybe the same place you got it). Block Brothers made a common Cardinals team photo RPPC with the RPPC stamp box back (not mine). I think I have seen it dated as 1926 and 1928, not sure what is correct.

unfortunately I do not know anything about it

But I do wish I could find a card like that in my piles.

Looks Great

I need to go to jelly school (South Park reference)
 

Of all the Hornsbys in all the world, that's the one I'd want.

George,

Here's another Hornsby not for sale:

I wish I could find that in a pile of stuff I have laying around.

I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing. I still have several tubs of stuff I need to go through.

I was sort of hoping someone would have seen one of these or have another or something?

.

Autograph
 

I posted this on the front page and copied here. Thoughts on the autograph? I assume it's fake but that is an assumption.

Pretty good one if it is.

Actually, autograph looks spot on-are you sure it is live ink and not printed?

I put it under uv and nothing fluoresced. It almost looks like the autograph was written over. So the answer is I don't know. There is nothing on top of the card (ink)....so maybe the words are printed?

Funny, a few of you have echoed my different thoughts in your posts!

--I am not familiar with this issue to know if it's a preprint.

--If the ink is live, it's a great signature and appears period to the issue date, so a nice, vintage example if so.

--I too couldn't ascertain from the scan if there was some possible signature enhancement or other issue, as it could seem like that (or, just possibly a poor scan or the fact that it truly is a preprint and the printer did a shoddy job of that).

Because Leon can't tell himself if the ink is live with the item in hand, just err on the side of caution and consider it a preprint until more info can be gathered.

Of note is that the printing underneath the autograph appears to exhibit the same unevenness as the signature, which really leads me to lean towards it being printed.

So on the front page thread Robert S chimed in on some aspects of the card and history. The printing is printed on and not handwritten. Here is the autograph in larger form...

https://luckeycards.com/block.jpg

Any indentations on the back from what might have been something writing over the front?

No indentions whatsoever on the back.

The autograph looks to be fountain pen and I think it is authentic. May have been enhanced but not certain.

To me it looks like it's in the photo itself and not signed on top. As in it was signed on an original that was then used to make the Post Card probably, kind of how they also added the writing on the bottom and and when they did that they may have also traced over the original autograph to make it appear darker, you can almost see the traceover. Angle it so you can look at the front with raking light and see if you can see the ink of the signature reflecting back at all or if it's the same tone and surface as the rest of the postcard.

I still believe it is signed on the post card until a picture of another one shows up with the same autograph. It is doubtful a fountain pen would leave indentations on the reverse of the post card unless it is very thin paper stock.

If it was traced to make it darker and then printed it should be consistent and this one is not. It appears to me that the fountain pen ink just faded in spots on the signature over the last 90+ years.

Of course everyone has an opinion and this is mine.