"+1. The chance of Trump signing a Hillary photo/cover are astronomically slim and the chance that random seismograph graph writing is Trump's is even slimmer, IMO.
Like at first, the seemingly too many 'm's in a Jimmie Foxx…"
"Steve, look at the baseline of the "Ruth" on this one. As well as the wide spaced curl of the e to R transition. And the th composition. The baseline suddenly bottoming out isn't uncommon during his last 5 years."
"1944. What you've noted are often standard features of his 1944 through 1948 signatures. Every one of these features sometimes appears in the signatures of his final 5 years.
1) I see the parts of the track that are lighter and those that…"
"Steve, I think we could all have one whale of a discussion about this piece if members were willing to offer reasons as to why they're convinced it's a forgery, from the technical aspect of only the piece itself.
"Steve, if it's a fake, what I'd sure like to know is how they faded portions of the ink in an absolutely technically correct manner, while flawlessly controlling the feathering of the ink into the paper that would be typical…"
"Here's an interesting comparison. Here's a 1944 Ruth sold by Heritage (authentic).
Compare especially the Babes in the two signatures. Slightly different, but extremely close. More important than the details of each letter, which are right…"
I definitely won't be the last! It is obvious from your comments that you have a keen understanding of the hobby and will be a welcomed asset to this community. Your insights are on target and brought a smile to my face. Thanks.