Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Randy on January 6, 2015 at 4:32pm

Authentic IMO.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on January 6, 2015 at 6:25pm

I agree with Randy. Authentic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on January 6, 2015 at 6:49pm

I think it looks a little stiff, and the R is off a little.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on January 6, 2015 at 7:45pm

Well, I do agree that the R is a little off, Terrier. Actually, I don't think you typically see the first line of the R extend that far, if at all, below the second line. That does seem a little unusual to me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on January 6, 2015 at 7:56pm

The "R" is a little unusual but I have seen similar ones before. The rest of the autograph looks good to me but of course only my opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on January 6, 2015 at 10:41pm

I do still think it's likely authentic, however.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on January 7, 2015 at 9:49am

Ruth is tough now, in light of the "questionable" balls that were authenticated by JSA and PSA a few years ago.  its tough to find good, reliable reference points.  Here is one that I believe to be authentic.  Rather than looking at each letter technically, I look at the overall signature and the one in question just seems to lack the "bounciness" and feel of an authentic Ruth.  but like Randy says, its just an opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on January 7, 2015 at 7:42pm

I agree, Terrier, that flow and bounce are really significant. Because when we sign our own names, we don't hesitate, we just do it quickly and naturally. The one you present definitely has better of both than the one at the top of the page. Plus, the one you show has what I would call almost a classic Ruth R.

Regarding the questionable Ruths authenticated by PSA and JSA, what time period are you talking about? I have one authenticated in 2005.

• ▶ Reply