Hi everyone,
Does this Babe Ruth autograph look real in your opinion?

Views: 913

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It is a bad source. How do you excuse your sellers behavior, selling forgeries? What does this behavior say about your seller? A man of conscience? Straight shooter? Or something else?


Think about this:

You paid $400;
The seller paid eBay $40;
The seller must have made a profit, so he probably paid $200 or less.

So if it's real, not only was the eBay seller dumb enough to sell a genuine Harrison for a fraction of its value. The person he bought it from had to be brain-dead.


Does anyone have any sure genuine circa-1990 Harrison autographs they can post for comparison?

This is a facsimile copy of George Harrison 1991 autograph for reference.

Those look so smooth compared to the OP. The OP gets a bit angular, such as the second "g".

You're right, Eric. The second G is actually smooth but it isn't naturally flowing, which is what I think you meant.

Yes, Steve, like much of the rest.

Here's a comparo of Daniel's McCartney, top and right; and ones from about 1980 to 1992 on the left. What do you see?

Enough to not want the one on the right. The whole thing looks uncomfortable to forced; the "G", the height of the letters in the first name is odd, the formation of letters in same, negative spaces, spatial relationships, those "r"'s, more...definite pass.

The first thing I noticed when I saw Daniel's Harrison a year or so ago was that it didn't have the natural characteristics of human writing. There's a precision and smoothness that we're incapable of for more than a short stroke, at best.

The horizontal connecting strokes in George from the E to O, O to R, and R to G are uncannily similar.

On Harrison, the A to R and R to R are almost identical. The perfect curve connecting the O to N, and the remarkably smooth and straight line finishing the N are machine-like.

Another important thing to notice is that the S of Harrison on Daniel's looks like an O. Harrison's S often looks much like an O, but there's at least a tiny peak that gives it the semblance of an S. On Daniel's it looks like an O...no hint of anything else.

Compare Daniel's Harrison to other examples posted here and in the comparo image I uploaded. Those look signed by hand to me; Daniel's Harrison looks designed and manufactured.

Then there's the ink and paper. The autograph looks like it could have been signed yesterday. There's no fading; no ageing beyond a touch of obligatory stain or residue below the top-right corner.

And it's signed a blank piece of paper or index card. Most rock autographs are signed on something printed or an autograph album page.


© 2019   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Community Manager.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service