Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by James on March 28, 2017 at 1:04am

I think this is likely authentic, but hopefully others will opine.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on April 2, 2017 at 5:31pm

Don,

I just came across your post. Sorry it took a while for me to pipe in. I think the autograph has a good chance of being real, too, but you need input from someone who really knows Ruth well. And if it looks OK from images, I recommend getting a return privilege that lets you get in-person authentication.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on April 2, 2017 at 6:16pm

This signature looks off to me. Especially the "be" in Babe.  the relative heights of the letter are off. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on April 2, 2017 at 9:00pm

You may well be right.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Don Webster on April 3, 2017 at 3:47pm

Thanks everyone -- much appreciated..

Any other comments are most welcome!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on April 3, 2017 at 4:01pm

Don,

You really need someone who knows Ruth's autograph well on this. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Chase on April 3, 2017 at 10:55pm

This signature almost has a preprint look to it, but it might just be the scan. Please get more opinions

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Chase on April 4, 2017 at 6:04am

Assuming this is live ink, it does look off in my opinion. I have to agree with Terrier

• ▶ Reply