Gehrig

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Yes, it is genuine. Gehrig employed this rushed style mostly in the 1937-38 seasons from my experience.

[GrayGhost]

Not a fan of the shot it Richard. But in different places that I've looked I have seen that rushed signature. Still would be awesome to be able to buy a better one like the more classic style.

[RichardSimon]

After I made my post I sent an email with the Gehrig image to someone with an opinion that I truly respect and who is highly revered on Net54 but who did not want his name used..
Here is his reply:
‎"Hi Rich, hope all is well. I don't like this one at all...no one seems to care anymore."

[RichardSimon]

I have certainly seen many rushed sigs of Gehrig before, usually they are on scorecards, but not quite like that one.
Does anyone have an exemplar with that "L"?

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

I have certainly seen many rushed sigs of Gehrig before, usually they are on scorecards, but not quite like that one.
Does anyone have an exemplar with that "L"?

I'm certainly not an expert, though I have owned a rushed Gehrig. At first I thought, "rushed Gehrig." Spending a couple of seconds though it also occurred to me that I have never seen one with an "L" remotely like that.

I definitely wouldn't say that my not having seen one like it means it is it not legit, but it is definitely not like anything I have seen...

[theshleps]

That is how I felt. Am tempted to bid when things are in slabs thinking they know better than me but then when I ask Stinson or you guys you almost always agree with me. thanks

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

I have certainly seen many rushed sigs of Gehrig before, usually they are on scorecards, but not quite like that one.
Does anyone have an exemplar with that "L"?

Here's the card:



And here are two more examples:





And here's one with no "L" at all! (pen skipped.)


They are all a bit different from one another.

And they are all good.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

After I made my post I sent an email with the Gehrig image to someone with an opinion that I truly respect and who is highly revered on Net54 but who did not want his name used..
Here is his reply:
‎"Hi Rich, hope all is well. I don't like this one at all...no one seems to care anymore."

Gee... I just heard from a "revered Net54 expert," too. And I have no doubt that those here hold his expertise in high regard.

He says the signature is good.

(Two can play the "un-named source" game.)

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Gee... I just heard from a "revered Net54 expert," too. And I have no doubt that those here hold his expertise in high regard.

He says the signature is good.

(Two can play the "un-named source" game.)

It was not a game. The man in question asks that his name not be used on Net54.
I honor his request and I think that the members here believe me.
Did your unnamed expert ask you to keep his name private?
And do you think I did not know that was exactly what you would say David?
But I actually did consult with that unnamed person and thought I should offer his opinion.
David, your hatred of me is so transparent.
How many years have you carried this grudge David?
Long, long time.
Many years, right David?
I am not going to engage in a back and forth with this "happy" guy.
I can spend my time on better things.
Go ahead David, the field is yours.
Show them the real you.

[David Atkatz]

What I posted is true Richard.
I was emailed by a Net54 autograph expert. One who no longer posts, but is quite well-known--and well-respected--among the cognoscenti. He believes the autograph is genuine.
But...
My post was made tongue-in-cheek. Because citing un-named sources to promote your argument is total bullshit. And you have a long history of doing just that.
I have no doubt what you said is true. But if you can't use the name, then don't post. Doing otherwise just makes you sound ridiculous.
And desperate.

[Republicaninmass]

This is the reason they are "opinions"

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

What I posted is true Richard.
I was emailed by a Net54 autograph expert. One who no longer posts, but is quite well-known--and well-respected--among the cognoscenti. He believes the autograph is genuine.
But...
My post was made tongue-in-cheek. Because citing un-named sources to promote your argument is total bullshit. And you have a long history of doing just that.
I have no doubt what you said is true. But if you can't use the name, then don't post. Doing otherwise just makes you sound ridiculous.
And desperate.

I seem to recall unnamed sources on the TV news and printed in newspapers every single day in American history. I guess the Washington Post, NY Times and other news sources are ridiculous too. According to the Atkatz rules I guess those entities should not do that either.