Quote:
Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere
Not even close.
|
Chris,
First, let me say how sorry I was to hear about the loss in your family. I hope with time that peace and happiness fully replace the sadness and grief that you are feeling now.
As a complete autograph novice, I continue to be confused by these recent Ruth threads. I have looked at all the HOS articles related to Ruth's autograph (as well as net54 threads) and even in those cases where the examples are thought by most to be authentic (legal documents, checks, some balls and photos with invariant and tractable provenance) I can still see clear differences in letter formation and size, slant, pressure, flow and spacing. I assume these are, in part, the result of how Ruth signed (rushed or careful), how the item signed was stabilized, the time window in Ruth's career when the signing occurred, pen or pencil, etc. Even when I look back on my own signature over the last 30 years or so I see huge variations not only over the entire span but even within the same year.
So my question is how can anyone be confident (based on the characteristics of the signature only) that a Ruth autograph (as an example) is authentic? I find it very hard to believe that whatever the characteristic or combination of characteristics thought to define an authentic Ruth auto would not break down the more 100% authentic Ruth autos that are examined. This combined with what Jim S. had posted about the remarkable ability of the master forgers that have invaded the Hobby underscores my question.
Thank you,
Craig