Looking for opinions on this Chick Hafey signature

[packs]

Hey Guys,

I picked this photo up on eBay. It wasn't sold as a signed photograph, but the writing on the front looks a lot like some Hafey signatures I've seen in the past. I was wondering if anyone thought it was authentic. It's just so close to his signature that I thought it was either real or a really elaborate labeling by someone. The back has Hafey's name written on it as well but it is in pencil. Thanks.

[Jay Wolt]

Here's a certified Beckett example, there are some similarities, looks OK

[packs]

The C and the H make me think it's real. I just don't see why someone labeling a photograph would go through the trouble of copying the way a person's signs their name. Seller did not sell it as a signed photo, just an original photo. I'm hoping it is real because it was a $19 gamble.

[Lordstan]

I think it's real.
Plus anyone who was forging would've played up the signature part.
Even as just a period snapshot of a HOF'er $19 is pretty good.

Mark

[packs]

I thought so too. The seller had a Lefty O'Doul one too that was very similar. A snapshot of O'Doul on the Dodgers with a signature on top. I thought the O'Doul looked good too and probably should have bought it as well. It ended up going for $22. I was the only bidder on the Hafey. Seller had them listed as being from 1932.

[GrayGhost]

Good indeed.

[mr2686]

Looks good to me too. The only thing that looks a little different than the one's I've seen is how the K ends. Most end like the one in Jay's post...but that could have to do with the period in which it was signed. I think you got a great deal.

[MooseDog]

It's good. Not a lot of money in forging Hafey sigs.

[steve B]

Interesting thread, I think I'm about to learn some stuff.

So as someone that doesn't do much with autographs, I'm seeing lots of differences between the two that would make me think it wasn't Hafey, but was someone that learned the same writing system.

No quotes around "chick"
placement of the dot over the I or over the C
both the K and y end on a down stroke on the card but upstroke on the photo
on the photo the h conects to the a but not on the card
on the card most of the loops are tighter, nearly closed but are more looped on the photo
The right stroke of the H is curved on one, but very straight on another.
And a few more too.

I know signatures can change with time, but some of these differences seem like something that would be a bit more constant. The general formation of the letters is the same, but most anyone that learned the same penmanship system would be fairly close.


So do signatures change that much, or is it just assumed it's real because it's not an expensive one? The differences are bigger than some of the things that make people think some Ruth sigs are fake (I don't usualy see anything obvious on many of those)

Steve B

[prewarsports]

I would speculate that it was not his signature, but just my opinion. It might be real, but I saw it on ebay and passed on it.

[packs]

I don't know if it's real or not but will know when it comes. I had questions too but since the seller didn't even mention the possibility of it being signed, I figured the photo came from a collection that he either bought or was given. It would be hard to track down an original snapshot of Hafey, especially one like this which to me looked like Spring Training. So I'm assuming the photo was taken by someone who worked on field, like maybe a reporter. If it was a reporter and he was able to get this close to Hafey, I don't know he would then label the subject in the photo in a manner that looks very close to his signature. Why not just write it in your own handwriting? The O'Doul signature looked very different from this one so I ruled out the possibility that a forger had obtained both photos and forged both signatures. But again, I have no idea if it's authentic or not.

[packs]

Here is the O'Doul which I did not win. To me the signatures don't look like they were made by the same person, but they are in the same pen and look as though both photos were taken by the same person. Are they both fake?

[mr2686]

here's some assumptions. Based on the two photographs and the teams they were playing on...and assuming they were taken by the same person at or around the same time, that would put these photos at around 1932 or 33. I have seen a ton of Lefty O'Doul autographs but I do not believe I have seen one pre 1933, at least that I remember. Everyone of them has the top of the D curl around and create a straight line over the oul in O'doul. With that said, maybe this is prior to him starting that. This auto has enough similarities that , to me, if it was someone copying his signature, they would obviously know about the D...that would be the easiest to copy. If it were me, and for the price, I would have picked them both up and sent them off to Richard Simon or Jim Stinson to verify. At the very least, you would have a nice piece of baseball photography history of a hall of famer and a should be hall of famer (again, my opinion)

[rhettyeakley]

They look to be done in the same hand to me. The use of quotes on both along with the almost exact "f" and "y" in Lefty and Hafey makes me lean towards not autographed.
-Rhett

[ullmandds]

I'm certainly no expert...but the y's look very different to me?

[packs]

I'm not an expert either but in my opinion the Y's and F's are different. The seller had the photos listed as being from 1932. Both these guys lived almost into the 1970s (Hafey 73 and O'Doul 69) so we're talking 40 years in between for them to change their signatures. They could both very well be extremely fake. It's just a very weird fake to go through the trouble of making, especially since it's clear that if these are fake the forger at least had some sense of what the signature looked like and lacked some sense of what later signatures looked like.

[mr2686]

that's exactly what I'm thinking as well

[prewarsports]

To me the "e" in Lefty and the "e" in Hafey are the telltale signs that the same person probably wrote those. That is a very distinct almost upside down looking v and it is exactly the same on each. I am not an authenticator and am just giving my opinion.

However, the good news is, you got that Hafey cheap even as an original photo and from my experience as a guy who has collected photos for over 10 years, Hafey is a tough guy to get an image of. I am not sure if he was self conscious about his glasses, shy, or nobody cared, but of all the Hall of Famers of his era, he is one of the toughest. For example, right now I have about 75 different images of Babe Ruth, and 5-10 each of other guys like Bottomley, Hornsby, Foxx, Wilson, Hartnett etc. and I dont own a single Hafey and have not for years so signed or not, you did well.

[rhettyeakley]

I'm not seeing what you guys are seeing (the "f" in those two names is almost exactly the same to me) so I will just have to respectfully disagree with you guys.

[mr2686]

Prewarsports...you said it. I have yet to find even a reproduced photo of Hafey that I really like, not that there are that many to choose from. I'll probably end up matting his signature with a Perez Steele or other card and be done with it.
Rhett, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing on stuff like this, in fact, that is what makes this so much fun. Makes you want to dig up as many exemplars as possible to help prove your point. Kinda like standing on the corner debating with your friends who the better ballplayer is...Willie, Mickey or the Duke.