PDA

View Full Version : Mickey Mantle Autograph Question


Archive
06-30-2007, 02:37 PM
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>In what year did Mantle start signing his name with the loops under his "M"?<br /><br />Thanks in advance.

Archive
06-30-2007, 03:37 PM
Posted By: <b>Mike</b><p>Early examples (1950's) are traditional in character formation, with a heavier right slant. The beginning stroke, during the 50's, began at the top of the letter with a small hook before the first loop. The stroke that formed the character began to incorporate loops which gradually increased in size and flamboyance. By the 60's, the character had become much rounder in appearance with the opening stroke beginning to exhibit a large loop formation. The late 1960's saw the loop gradually beginning to dip below the signature line, and by the 1970's the formation became established as a distinct characteristic of his autograph. The opening of the his last signatures extended below the base line and as far as the "i" in Mickey. The width of the descending loop is inconsistent and the 'M" may or may not connect to the "i". <br /><br />Hopefully you can date your signature from the above. Good luck. Sounds like yours is the 60's.<br /><br />

Archive
06-30-2007, 03:52 PM
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>What do you think of this baseball? This ball is in an upcoming local auction and I already notified the auctioneer that the ball is NOT from 1951 as they claim...I also told him that the DiMaggio just didn't look right to me. I asked him if it had a COA and he said he didn't know, but that he may go over to sort stuff today and he's going to call and let me look at the stuff if he does. I just don't think this ball looks good to me, but I am no expert.<br /><br /><img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b331/nudan92/mantle2.jpg">

Archive
06-30-2007, 04:03 PM
Posted By: <b>David Atkatz</b><p>Mantle's signature was fully formed in the "late" form by 1966 or so.<br /><br />I've got a single-signed OAL ball that he signed for me outside the Stadium in 1967, and it is pretty much identical to his assembly-line signatures.<br /><br />And I agree--that DiMaggio looks bad.

Archive
06-30-2007, 04:53 PM
Posted By: <b>mr. moses</b><p>as the Mantle "looks" good although no-one can say YES on an internet image (although one can say NO to one <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>. The lettering and flow appears good and seems to fit the the "second name slant" thing Mantle did later. Unfamiliar with JD.

Archive
06-30-2007, 05:31 PM
Posted By: <b>Rhys</b><p>The DiMaggio signature looks like a classic example of his sisters secretarial work. Most items sent to DiMaggio through the mail in the 1970's were signed by Sister. It probably helps to date the Mantle as well to that time period as it looks slightly older than his card show era signatures of the 1980's and 1990's. I would say that without looking at it in person that the Mantle looks good and that the DiMaggio was probably obtained through the mail and signed by his sister.<br /><br />Rhys Yeakley

Archive
06-30-2007, 05:59 PM
Posted By: <b>Mike</b><p>The mantle is good. The Joe D. IMO is not. I could go on for pages as to the reasons why, but I feel comfortable with my conclusion.<br /><br />BY the way, Mantle's is not fom 51. Not even close. I'd say that mantle is more from the late 80's early 90's. Still a beauty though. He had a great signature didn't he ?? Love it.

Archive
06-30-2007, 06:03 PM
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Thanks for the help guys....While the Mantle does look good I agree with everyone here that the DiMaggio just isn't right. I will pass on the info I have gotten here to the auctioneer. They have always trusted my judgment on baseball memorabilia.<br /><br />I think the DiMaggio was signed first - probably by his sister like Rhys said - since it is signed on the sweet spot. The Mantle may have been gotten in person at a show or somewhere.

Archive
07-10-2007, 03:44 PM
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Well.....this baseball sold for $1600 at auction yesterday. I was not in attendance as my son had a little league game. I am really disappointed in the auction house for not setting the record straight on this ball after I talked to the auctioneer about the ball and that it was impossible that it was signed in 1951 - That is exactly how they sold it. <br /><br />Earlier this year they advertised a Babe Ruth autographed baseball and they had me look at it - immediately I could tell it was a fake and they pulled it from the auction. This time I have a feeling they may have been intimidated by the consigner as he is a very well to do doctor that was selling off hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of items yesterday. They even allowed him to sell stuff that was listed in the auction before the auction started. A Hummer and a pitch and bat pinball game from the 1950s were both listed in the auction, but sold beforehand.

Archive
07-10-2007, 04:06 PM
Posted By: <b>Mike</b><p>Not sure how to respond. The buyer was "had". No way that is that his 1951 Sig. It is a real Mick auto though. So the buyer only got half screwed. i guess a half a screw job is not as bad as a complete screw job. They old adage "Buyer beware".

Archive
07-10-2007, 05:12 PM
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Yep...even though if I had been there I would have told the buyer that there is no way the ball is from '51 and that the DiMaggio signature is highly suspect...it is still up to the buyer to do their own homework.<br /><br />There were lots of Nebraska football jerseys there that I don't know enough about to say one way or another whether they were legit, but if this doctor had that ball in his possession (he obtained it from ebay is the story) and thought it was from 1951 then I doubt he had a clue about the rest of the sports memorabilia that he was buying.

Archive
07-11-2007, 07:04 PM
Posted By: <b>Rob L</b><p>the Mantle appears fake too. The loops under the "M"s don't extend under the "M"s very far which is atypical and the screw up in the first "M" transitioning to the "i" is a bit scary also.<br /><br />Rob L