Mantle Help needed!

[pitchingace77]

I am not an expert on Mantle but for the most part to me this signature looks good, the k seems a little off to me. Any other ideas?

[Econteachert205]

I'm not a fan.

[shelly]

just for fun lets see the whole picture.

[Mr. Zipper]

I'd be shocked if Mickey Mantle was ever within 100 feet of this photo.

[shelly]

I'd be shocked if Mickey Mantle was ever within 100 feet of this photo.

He had to be how else would that photo been taken:confused::)

[khkco4bls]

I'm no expert but I do not like the N in mantle

[Klrdds]

In my opinion every letter has something wrong if you look close enough.

[7nohitter]

This is a DISASTER

[joed25]

It definitely looks funky but I would say it's probably authentic.

[pitchingace77]

It definitely looks funky but I would say it's probably authentic.

Why do you say that?

[thetruthisoutthere]

The Mantle the OP posted is definitely authentic.

[johnmh71]

Chris:

How is this different from any of the Florida forgeries that you post on a regular basis?

[thetruthisoutthere]

Chris:

How is this different from any of the Florida forgeries that you post on a regular basis?

It's not even close to a "Florida" forgery, John.

Just think all the hundreds of variations of Mickey Mantle's autograph.

That's why I depend and have so much confidence in my "eye."

[Econteachert205]

It's not even close to a "Florida" forgery, John.

Just think all the hundreds of variations of Mickey Mantle's autograph.

That's why I depend and have so much confidence in my "eye."


Chris, just wondering, because I said initially I did not like it, but would love to be convinced what exactly your eye says... Later in life sig? Drunk? Rushed? Or just in your mind an acceptable common variation?

[shelly]

Your eye is fantastic. Why dont you say the flow is perfect. The slant on tle is perfect with no hesitation. The whole autograph is perfect not slow no hesitations and is like the tpa"s would say/ Pressure, flow and it is consistent with other signatures
Some times people just sign sloppy but there are certain things you can see.
Stop with your eye. It is your opinion that it is good. Just like the Babe Ruth ticket that you said was bad.
You said then that it was bad and I am still waiting for that you can prove it.
Tell people why you like or do like something.
You are my friend but please stop with eye.

[Econteachert205]

Thank you Shelly

[shelly]

No need to thank me. I am really tired of my eye. When I had a question about Chris's opinion> I went to Zip. someone I respect. He took the time out to say why he came to the decision he reached. If you read what he said. He did agree it was not good but at the same time he said that the example given by Chris was not correct as well. He gave a reason why he did not like it . It had nothing to do with his eye.:)

[thetruthisoutthere]

Or just in your mind an acceptable common variation?

Absolutely.

[Mr. Zipper]

Here is my 2 cents…

I didn't like the Mantle for the following reasons. The “ic” has an odd slant; the right side of the M in Mantle is flared out. You see that in authentic examples on occasion, but far more often on fakes. I hate the pinched, open “a,” and the “n” looks clumsy and carefully applied. Lastly, the placement is sloppy and not nicely spaced and centered as he usually did. That's five red flags.

That said, there are some subtle positive attributes as well. Nice speed through the Ms, and a few other very subtle things I like to see, but don’t put on public chat boards.

Chris has studied Mantle far longer than me and I have a great deal of respect for his “eye.” The “eye” picks up on the “rhythm and feel” and goes beyond technical analysis. Sometimes this is what is needed to identify atypical but authentic examples. (Or examples that look great superficially, but look “off” for reasons hard to explain.)

My specialty is space and I have studied Neil Armstrong autographs for 20 years. After viewing thousands of them over time, I have seen sloppy train wrecks that fail on a technical basis, but I knew they were authentic because of very subtle cues that were hard to explain. Conversely, examples that 98% of dealers and collectors would think were fine, I knew they were very skilled fakes because they looked a tiny bit “off.” Trying to explain why is like the parents of identical twins trying to explain to others how they can tell them apart… but they always do.

Getting back to the Mantle, I trust Chris and his experience. However, assuming it is authentic, it is an example I would never want in my collection. Why pick an example that people could reasonably question when there are so many undoubtedly good examples available?

[Econteachert205]

Thanks guys, I was looking at only some of the technical factors steve mentioned without considering flow and overall construction, very helpful.

[shelly]

I am not an expert on Mantle but for the most part to me this signature looks good, the k seems a little off to me. Any other ideas?

Is that Roger Maris signature with Mickey. If not can you please send the whole photo and not just the Mick signature.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Your eye is fantastic.

Thank you, Shelly.


177090

[Fuddjcal]

Here is my 2 cents…

I didn't like the Mantle for the following reasons. The “ic” has an odd slant; the right side of the M in Mantle is flared out. You see that in authentic examples on occasion, but far more often on fakes. I hate the pinched, open “a,” and the “n” looks clumsy and carefully applied. Lastly, the placement is sloppy and not nicely spaced and centered as he usually did. That's five red flags.

That said, there are some subtle positive attributes as well. Nice speed through the Ms, and a few other very subtle things I like to see, but don’t put on public chat boards.

Chris has studied Mantle far longer than me and I have a great deal of respect for his “eye.” The “eye” picks up on the “rhythm and feel” and goes beyond technical analysis. Sometimes this is what is needed to identify atypical but authentic examples. (Or examples that look great superficially, but look “off” for reasons hard to explain.)

My specialty is space and I have studied Neil Armstrong autographs for 20 years. After viewing thousands of them over time, I have seen sloppy train wrecks that fail on a technical basis, but I knew they were authentic because of very subtle cues that were hard to explain. Conversely, examples that 98% of dealers and collectors would think were fine, I knew they were very skilled fakes because they looked a tiny bit “off.” Trying to explain why is like the parents of identical twins trying to explain to others how they can tell them apart… but they always do.

Getting back to the Mantle, I trust Chris and his experience. However, assuming it is authentic, it is an example I would never want in my collection. Why pick an example that people could reasonably question when there are so many undoubtedly good examples available?

I AGREE "The “ic” has an odd slant; the right side of the M in Mantle is flared out. You see that in authentic examples on occasion, but far more often on fakes. I hate the pinched, open “a,” and the “n” looks clumsy and carefully applied. Lastly, the placement is sloppy and not nicely spaced and centered as he usually did. That's five red flags."

While there are 5 flags, there are 5 authentic characteristics I like the way the ink is blotted, dotted or flicked at the beginning of both "M"s. I like the angle of the "Mickey" in comparison to the angle of the "Mantle". I like (don't love) the interaction from the "M" to the "a". Not the best of flicks, but not cartoonish like a Florida Forgery. While the "a" is open, it is a strong sign that you can see the pressure point on the top left of it. While the "n" is a bit atypical, at least it's pointed. The "tle" would also have the slant I'm looking for.

I agree with Chris that it is authentic, although I would love to see a good scan of the entire picture and would not want it in my collection....Unless that pic was also signed by Maris.:D

[timzcardz]

Never mind . . . .

[shelly]

It was signed by reggie jackson.
I think one of the most important points about that signature is the slant of tle and how perfect he crossed the t. There are things that we know make a bad Mantle this had some of them but not enough to make it a forgery. Just plane sloppy. If you have a piece of garbage like the Florida signatures I just put up red faces. If it something that makes you hesitate you say why. Not its just my opinion or my eye knows its bad.
Zip and Fud you dont have to write a book either:D:D

[ddog5]

So this is the rest of the photo...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/MICKEY-MANTLE-AND-REGGIE-JACKSON-8-X-10-AUTOGRAPH-/251812128353?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3aa12c2661

[MikeKam]

Looks good to me.