Mantle signature - 1953
 

No trick here - this is supposedly a 1953 Mantle signature on a baseball. It could be that I'm just not familiar with this particular Mantle style, so just posting the sig and not outing the seller and starting a ruckus.

I don't do this often so hopefully you all can bear with me for this one, and I can learn something:

Scott, never seen that signiture before.

Thanks Shelly. I'm kind of amazed at the lack of response given the 'I need help with my Mantle' posts that we see here constantly. It's not like I ask this sort of thing very often. But your response is appreciated and in the future I will send these questions by other means.

I don't specifically recall seeing one like that before, but I have a couple from 1954-1956 and they were morphing a lot during that time. I think one of mine even looks like he missed a letter it was signed so quickly. This one does look to have some sloppy speed to it.

A while back someone posted a Gehrig that I thought looked horrible, but David A educated me that it was just a hurried signature. I was wondering if this was something similar. I've been studying early to mid-50's Mantles for a while now, and while I've seen some that were worse than others, nothing like this.

I asked the question because it was an item I was interested in bidding on if authentic, but at this point I have decided to leave it alone.

Scott,
Part of the reason I didn't reply is that I can't clearly make out where the "Mickey" starts. Is part of the "M" cut off?
Mark

That's the entire signature.

Scott, Iconic auctions has a 51 or 53 autograph.That looks nothing like this. Rushed or not it just does not look like he signed it.

Scott,
In that you, I don't like it either..

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

The "Mantle" part looks similar to clubhouse examples, the "Mickey" part is just off.

Mantle
 

Too many red flags on this one... Even if it is right and rushed I would hold out for something a little nicer on the eyes

It makes sense that it would be clubhouse - I'll let the seller know.

Thanks, all, for your thoughts on this.

Final follow-up on this: the authenticator looked at it again and is sticking with his original opinion. No surprise, but as discussed in the past - once an auction house has chosen an authenticator, they really have to either always stay with the authenticator's opinion, or get rid of the authenticator altogether. So, no problem with the auction house on this one.

Not a great photograph, but i think it is authentic.

Chris, if it's not a great photo, then it's certainly not a great autograph.

The photograph is crystal clear.

You asked if it was "authentic."

You didn't ask if it was a "great autograph."

You said it was a bad photograph. I thought that was part of your reasoning for the opinion you gave.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

I have to say that I would pass big time. Authentic or not I would not buy it. I have looked at signitures from that time and nothing comes close.
Chris show me something even close to that.

Garbage....