Mantle Opinion

[jimjim]

What do you guys think about this Mantle? I think the sig looks OK, but I have never seen this image signed before. That always gives me some reservations. Thanks and let me know.

http://i1117.photobucket.com/albums/k588/jimjim1975/DSCF0989_zpsbe0de666.jpg (http://s1117.photobucket.com/user/jimjim1975/media/DSCF0989_zpsbe0de666.jpg.html)

[khkco4bls]

I'm no expert but it looks good to me

[William Farrell]

I'm no expert but it looks good to me

+1

The placement of the signature is characteristic of the type of care that MM exercises in his signatures, the ink optimally placed in bold relief, and contained within the area of the light area.

Signing across his chest, wouldn't have been as effective, due to the dark outlying areas.

[ATP]

I believe this one is good as well.

[shelly]

If I am not mistaken this is the same photo. The difference this is an original and the one we are asking about is third gen. For that reason only I will not say yea or ney because I dont know if this is a photo of a signiture. As to where Mantle signes that is another story. Please correct me if this is not the same photo. If it where not a third gen

154493

[jimjim]

Shelly,

I haven't seen the photo in-person yet, so I can't vouch on it being a copy or genuine. However, the photo I posted has the MBLPA logo in the bottom corner and yours does not. So maybe my photo is a blown up official version of your photo?

[shelly]

What I am saying is the minute you do not have the orginal that can also mean the signiture might be a second or third copy. Not an original signiture.

[Duluth Eskimo]

Looks like a copy of the Sports Illustrated poster. Not sure off the top of my head, but that's the first thing I thought when I saw it.

[jimjim]

Duluth,

I am a bit confused. You say it looks like a copy but it has the MLBPA logo in the corner. So it is not some cheap Kinkos photo. Other than photo quality can you please comment on the autograph? Thanks for your input.

[Deertick]

Most of those photos are crappy quality, many of which are photos of photos. They are MLPA authorized photos that were available and used for most of the autograph show signings during the 80's nto the 90's. Promoters would make copies of the MLPA items to avoid paying the proper fees, thus more profit. I think it is authentic, as yours seems to have the logo in the right place and it doesn't seem to be terribly blurry. Many even have TV Sports Mailbag printed on the reverse (although I'm not positive that this Mantle was offered).

[William Farrell]

Very interesting Ruth close up proving that Ruth was the first practitioner of the "Sparkly Eyes Technique".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erkpm6QggrU

and cloud-bursting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSkEiwWWE7c

It's all in the eyes!

[Duluth Eskimo]

I stand or sit corrected again, not same pose as SI poster now that I looked it up. As others have already stated, cheap photo quality with good looking autograph.

[shelly]

My reason for not buying that piece is that I am not sure if that is signed photo or a picture of a signed photo. The signiture was never the problem:)

[jimjim]

Just to follow-up on this post. I added this Mantle photo to my collection, and it does have the TV sports mailbag stamping on the back. It is not as blurry in-person, but it is definitely a zoomed in version of the picture that Shelly posted.

Thanks for all the feedback!