How it should be done.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Really? Going through YOUR files - I can.

Yeah. Really.

I should be a bit more precise. There are many, many examples of mid-late thirties Gehrig signatures that violate both criteria.

Here are two:





These are examples of Gehrig's more careful signature. Nash is not talking about this signature, but rather his more rushed "ballpark" signature form.

I assumed someone with your excellent eye would have realized that.

If you want to discuss Nash's ideas, fine. If you want to act like a smug SOB, count me out.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Yeah. Really.

I should be a bit more precise. There are many, many examples of mid-late thirties Gehrig signatures that violate both criteria.

That's not being more precise - that's changing your statement.

[Runscott]

But, as long as you are in the mood to change your statements, how about 1920's? Any examples in your files from that decade that violate both criteria?

[David Atkatz]

Change my statements? Do you really think I was unaware of the two examples I just posted, which are in my collection? I've owned the "To Mimmie" photo since I was 15--it's been my most prized possession for 46 years.

I thought you were expert enough to understand what was being discussed. Sorry I overestimated you.

In the twenties, Gehrig did not run his "L" and "G" together.

(I'm sure that was a trick question, Scott, 'cause anyone with your expertise would know that.)

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Change my statements? Do you really think I was unaware of the two examples I just posted, which are in my collection? I've owned the "To Mimmie" photo since I was 15--it's been my most prized possession for 46 years.

I thought you were expert enough to understand what was being discussed. Sorry I overestimated you.

In the twenties, Gehrig did not run his "L" and "G" together.

David, I'm certain you've never 'overestimated' anyone on this forum other than yourself.

As far as your "prized possessions" and what you've gleaned from them....nevermind.

[David Atkatz]

Well, I guess that settles it, then.

Excellent work, Scott.

[David Atkatz]

So, as I said before, I haven't found an example of a genuine Gehrig mid-thirties "ballpark" signature that violates both of Nash's criteria.

Has anyone an example to show?

[GrayGhost]

Please stop for once

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

I assumed someone with your excellent eye would have realized that.

If you want to discuss Nash's ideas, fine. If you want to act like a smug SOB, count me out.

David, I counted you out long ago.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Runscott

David, I counted you out long ago.

Fine with me, Scott. As I said before, your opinion on Ruth, Gehrig, and other vintage Yankees is worth about as much as my opinion on T206s.