Cy Young Authentication Help

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by scooter729

1,000% agree - let's not jump on someone with blame, when they came looking for some assistance....

He just needs advice that will help the next time. I've stated this before and never gotten a single response here, but I'll say it again: Before buying a signed vintage item, study as many examples of the person's signature as possible. Do this YOURSELF - don't rely on an authenticator.

If he had done this, he would have seen that on the Cy Young signatures that seem to have the most likelihood of being authentic, Cy Young almost always brings the pen back up at an acute angle from the bottom of the letters in 'Young' - on this ball, he loops slightly to the right before bring his pen up. Perhaps this in itself is not enough to judge the ball to be a forgery, but it's enough for me personally to avoid it.

The other thing - if he wasn't confident enough in his own ability to judge the authenticity of a signature, he shouldn't have bid. I wouldn't have touched this ball, purely because the signature looked too fresh. I'm sure there are lots of fresh-looking sigs out there, but you might as well go for something that looks like it has a more realistic chance of being authentic.

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I'm sure there are lots of fresh-looking sigs out there

Sure are Scott, anyone can see plenty every month at the Roaches

http://www.myccsa.com/Default.aspx

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by gnaz01

Sure are Scott, anyone can see plenty every month at the Roaches

http://www.myccsa.com/Default.aspx

Greg, this just drives me crazy every time I read one of these 'forged signature' threads. Don't get me wrong, I love reading them. But I don't understand how all the experts on this board can't tell when a signature is obviously a fake, just from looking at it. This one is not close - it's obviously fake (and I say this a little hesitantly, because some of my friends think it looks close to real and I honestly don't want to insult people here).

I've said the same thing about id'ing photos - very few in the hobby will actually use their eyeballs to identify anything. They will look at almost everything else first, starting with COA's and LOA's. It's baffling to me. It's sad that the guy purchased it to begin with, but not because he didn't come here first and ask questions. It's much simpler than that: google 'Cy Young signature', images, and see what comes up. It won't take long to realize this is a fake. It's not like this is a Mel Ott.

[CMIZ5290]

I can tell you that it looks very close to the 1953 postcard i had, and it passed psa/jsa. For whatever that's worth.....

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

I can tell you that it looks very close to the 1953 postcard i had, and it passed psa/jsa. For whatever that's worth.....

Kevin, I'd love to see an image of that signature, or any others that passed a reputable authenticator and look like this one.

[ScottR81]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Kevin, I'd love to see an image of that signature, or any others that passed a reputable authenticator and look like this one.

I posted a 1953 post card in this thread.....please tell me your not referring to mine??!

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by ScottR81

I posted a 1953 post card in this thread.....please tell me your not referring to mine??!

No, I saw yours and it doesn't have the same loop characteristic at the bottom of the letters. Looks much different in my opinion.

Edited to add: Scott, I'm just a guy with eyeballs and an attention to detail - not an authenticator. I have seen many authenticated autographs that might be good, but I wouldn't touch them. I've also seen plenty that weren't authenticated that I would not hesitate to purchase. The obvious rebuttal to my comments on Young's signature would be: "Yeah, but he COULD have signed it that way." Similar to the comments about the Ted Williams one that I didn't like: "Perhaps it was after his stroke". Hell I even got bashed on that thread for insensitivity toward stroke victims. Same for the Gehrig-signed items that feature one of his oddball, seldom-seen signatures. Or balls like the Gehrig/Ruth one owned by the 'super base-ball collector'. If you want to buy something like that, that you think 'could have' been signed by the player, then you need to be ready for the bad news down the road.

Just my opinion. I don't acquire any of my signed items for re-sell, so what others think about them really doesn't matter to me, and whatever I write here is probably just of entertainment value, if that. I am certainly entertained by these threads, and have learned a lot from guys like Richard Simon who post here.

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by ScottR81

I posted a 1953 post card in this thread.....please tell me your not referring to mine??!

I hope not

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Kevin, I'd love to see an image of that signature, or any others that passed a reputable authenticator and look like this one.

Scott,
He posted the 1953 Cy Young GPC on this thread. Go back a couple of pages or so and you will see the front and back of the GPC.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Scott,
He posted the 1953 Cy Young GPC on this thread. Go back a couple of pages or so and you will see the front and back of the GPC.

Yeah, I did. It didn't look similar in my opinion, so I figured Kevin was talking about a different item.

[gnaz01]

delete, sorry

[Runscott]

Here are a few we could talk about

Going clockwise from top-left, in each photo, there are eight (1-4 and 5-8). I picked these to show as many different styles as I could find. Obviously, #3 in photo 1 is the bad signature from the ball. But #2 in photo 1 is also bad in my opinion. I'm just using my eyeballs and my brain's ability to recognize patterns, so tell me I'm wrong, and why.