Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Randy on October 22, 2015 at 10:55am

I'm surprised they did not fail it outright. I don't think it is legitimate. The "L" and "G" are fairly close but I have never seen the "ehrig" that sloppy. Lou's handwriting was very legible throughout his career and particularly in the era around 1933.  Since they opined "unable to render an opinion" they obviously saw some traits they liked and some they didn't.

Was this a "Quick Opinion" online or did they actually have the item in hand?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on October 22, 2015 at 4:02pm

agree with Randy.  the L and G look ok, but the rest is a mess.  the irony is that if this were a forgery, wouldnt they have done a better job on the rest of the signature? I agree with the no opinion.

• ▶ Reply