Quote:
Originally Posted by Bpm0014
I can see 1934 not 1924. The top of the '3' is visible. Part of it is missing, but still a 3.
It is undeniably, and with 100% certainty, that it is a "2" and not a "3". Thus the year is (without question) 1924. The signature in question matches up perfectly with a 1924 time frame signature. His 1934 signature, while similar, looks nothing like this exemplar.
|
I agree with this. Ruth makes his 2's look like 3's some times.
Example.
Also, look how he writes "Oct. 25" Had there been a 35th day in October, you might believe that "2" was a "3."