Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve schneider on May 31, 2017 at 7:29am

Babe I've had for about 28 years and George about 15

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Woody2Shoes on July 25, 2017 at 4:02pm

The Ruth has a lot going for it. His use of space and the most important thing are the slight variances of the nib angle and depth as the directions change to form the signature as he wrote, all consistent with the way Ruth held his hand and the way his hand moved when he constructed his signature. The ink and the paper not only look proper, but have a symbiotic relationship, they belong together.

Now, what will give some pause are the quotes. Specifically that those two quotes have wider lines than any other portions of the signature. That's not typical.

The very long, untypical, slightly concave slash across the "t". 

The "R", with it's "tiny" upswept head, as opposed to the more often encountered "Salvadore Daliesque" type heavy head of the "R".

But it's my belief that those are simply "happy accidents", part and parcel of the intangibles of signing, how the paper was supported, how he was standing, and that this piece is indeed written by Ruth's hand.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on July 25, 2017 at 4:18pm

I am pretty sure the quotations around Babe represent a pre-1927 signature, which might explain the lack of flamboyance in the R.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Woody2Shoes on July 25, 2017 at 4:28pm

Of course, Terrier. I wasn't referring to the mere presence of the quotes and the more youthful exuberance and whimsy of his style at this time (pre-1928), I meant more the characteristic of the quotes. You don't often see the quotes constructed with, if you look closely, a dot and a tail, instead of slash slash, which caused the head of the quote to have the widest lines of the entire signature, almost twice the width of any other line present.

Though that didn't give me pause because the overall piece works 100% for early Ruth, I though that might send up a flare for some, the a Devil in the details, so I pointed it out.

• ▶ Reply