Mickey Mantle Opinion - thanks

[1treasuretrove]

What is your opinion of these? Thank you sincerely for the help!

[jimjim]

Yes on the second one. Hard to tell on the first. Picture is too blurry

[1treasuretrove]

Thanks Matthew.

The best picture the guy could give me of the first is as follows below:

[shelly]

I would go yes on both. The first picture is not the greatest.:):):):)

[Fuddjcal]

I would agree with Sheldon... NICE

[MVSNYC]

IMO, first one no, second one yes.

[1treasuretrove]

I now have both of these - so, here's some better scans:

Mantle 1 is a very nice Gallo print, it looks great other than the small chip on the upper left corner gloss.

MANTLE 1 ATTACHED

[1treasuretrove]

For Mantle 2, "ickey" and "antle" appear to be exactly the same, letter-for-letter as Mantle 1. The "M" in the first and last name are different but the first "M" feels like a natural variance.

MANTLE 2

[1treasuretrove]

Side-by-side:

[MVSNYC]

Mantle 2 looks good.

Mantle 1 looks better to me now, since you posted very clear images. The only thing still bothering me is how the first M is very condensed/smashed.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Mantle 2 looks good.

Mantle 1 looks better to me now, since you posted very clear images. The only thing still bothering me is how the first M is very condensed/smashed.

A forger wouldn't be able to keep the sig within the boundary of the uniform and still have that natural flow.

[Mr. Zipper]

Both look good to me. #2 is a fairly uncommon pose signed. I wouldn't mind having that one at all. :D

[Fuddjcal]

PER FECTO!!!!!! Nice pick-ups. :D