I still don't know how to feel about the whole "Operation Bambino" thing right now. We know one thing, Ruth was a pretty inconsistent signer for the most part. With several different variations over only a short period of time. For somebody that had only "8" letters in his entire name to sign, he sure did sign them differently often. But on the other hand, his hand was huge and he was a lefty. So I guess he was not built to have the greatest penmanship.
I wish they used examples of Ruth autographs on baseballs to compare the examples in question in their articles. They seemed to have used mostly signed documents and flats, which really is not the greatest comparison when comparing to all signed baseballs.
All the examples they are calling into question, for the most part you can find several Ruth examples that do support the questioned examples in the article. I guess the problem is, how do we know the examples we are using are authentic?
What do you guys think about this Ruth autograph compared to the record breaker Ruth. Any similarities? Was it perhaps signed with the same pen? on the same day? If so, was the day in 1948 or in the 90's?
(I took the second picture with my cell phone, so it has some glare) But the original auction posting can be found at:
www.liveauctioneers.com/item/195440