Cy Young Authentication Help

[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.

[ScottR81]

Originally Posted by Runscott

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.

hope that means different in a good way..lol.

[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.

[ScottR81]

Originally Posted by 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.

They all look so different! :0

Besides the wearing factor of the actual signature on whatever item has been signed how do you really know?

As far as how many Scott's there are, the 81 in my name is my birth year so can I at least claim that Im the youngest

[CMIZ5290]

The postcard next to the ball was mine....how do they not look similar? especially, compared to the other ones that are supposedly good?

[ScottR81]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

The postcard next to the ball was mine....how do they not look similar? especially, compared to the other ones that are supposedly good?

At this point now all I want to know about is the postcard left of the ball.

Because it is mine.

I need a stress test.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

The postcard next to the ball was mine....how do they not look similar? especially, compared to the other ones that are supposedly good?

Kevin, out of all the Cy Young signatures I could find by googling, your postcard has the closest 'first glance' look to the ball's as any - I think he might have used yours as his model.

But the big giveaway in my opinion is the way he brings his pen up from the bottom of the 'u' and 'n' (bringing the pen up to the right). He loops out a little in the ball signature, but forms a 'v' angle on your old card. Another extreme example is that other one I think is a fake - it looks like he does the opposite of a loop, more like Connie Mack's style. Another habit was when he brought his pen back up to the left, he tended to relax and form a loop rather than an angle, but sometimes there was sort of an angle - on the bad one (the ball), and the other one I think's a fake, you see angles rather than loops.

An exception was that when he signed in a hurry, he didn't come back up with his pen (like in the return address and the one where he writes 'Peoli' underneath).

If you practice writing 'Young', trying to duplicate the loop vs the angle vs the inverted loop, for the 'u' and 'n', you'll find that you can probably only do it one of the three ways without the signature looking very unnatural.