[logos]

Some graphologists are hoaxsters, but there are legitimate observations made by a few who've spent many years at it.

You may be right (although I would change "some" to "most," even so), but during the 20+ years I spent in, shall we say, a related field, I never met a single one who was able to back up his/her claims. It's telling, I think, that certified handwriting analysts (those who only try to connect specific writers with particular writings) are accepted in every court in the land as "expert witnesses," while so far as I know, such status has never been extended to even one graphologist.

I suppose it's possible I just met all the wrong graphologists...

[gumbo]

Years ago I read several books on graphology, and in my admittedly amateur opinion, there do seem to be certain general handwriting traits that are susceptible to graphological analysis.

Those who claim to divine the exact meaning of every little squiggle (e.g., that a certain shape of certain tail on a certain letter shows the writer to be jealous and acquisitive) are hoaxsters and nothing better than astrologers.