Double X (Foxx) and Mantle Opinions

[jbhofmann]

Would really appreciate opinions on these...I'm more skeptical on Mantle but I'm such an amateur compared to many here.




Thanks in advance,
Joel

[shelly]

I am sort of torn on the Mantle I dont like the second m being so high up from the first. I dont like the slant on the cross of the t. It also looks sloppy. I would say no. On this one I could be wrong. I just would stay away.

[jbhofmann]

Originally Posted by shelly

I am sort of torn on the Mantle I dont like the second m being so high up from the first. I dont like the slant on the cross of the t. It also looks sloppy. I would say no. On this one I could be wrong. I just would stay away.

Appreciate the opinion Shelly. So I guess the trademark emoticon should be for this one.

Thanks!

[Klrdds]

I agree with Shelly on Mantle . I would stay away from this, plus there are better examples of his available.
The Foxx looks ok to me. The big thing for Foxx is that he signed with many variations on the "J", and that can be an authentication nightmare. All else looks ok to me.

[theshleps]

Foxx looks good to me but if it came from the same book as the Mantle beware I guess

[Duluth Eskimo]

Good and good

[ATP]

To me, the Mantle looks like a vintage example and I think it is okay, lots of speed. I think the Foxx is okay as well.

[joed25]

Both are authentic

[shelly]

Originally Posted by ATP

To me, the Mantle looks like a vintage example and I think it is okay, lots of speed. I think the Foxx is okay as well.

What year do you think this mantle was done.

[shelly]

download.jpg

Originally Posted by joed25

Both are authentic

Joe, I would really like to have you show me a mantle cut where the second m is much higher than the first.I gave my reason why I felt know please who me why you say yes. I said I could be wrong so proof it.
I looked at a hundred just like this one That is what through me off.I usually am able to say yes in a second not this one. Look at the two Ms and I think you and everyone else can see what I mean.

download.jpg

[ATP]

Originally Posted by shelly

What year do you think this mantle was done.

1970's

[shelly]

ft.jpg look at the two m's

[ATP]

I think it's similar to the era of this example, even though this is a stacked one. Hopefully I can get this to post correctly from my iPad.

[Mr. Zipper]

The Mantle sure is puzzling.

It has an unusual slant, which is especially evident in the "ckey." Also, spacing is very stretched out in Mantle. Look at the huge gap between the M and A. Overall, it has an almost "feminine" look.

On the plus side, it was signed with good speed and the Ms look good. If it's a fake, it's a fairly deceptive one.

I can't say definitively either way, but I'd have doubts about it.

[Runscott]

The Mantle looks bad.

Going letter-by-letter isn't generally a great idea, but if an autograph just looks 'off', such a method sometimes yields an obviously bad letter.

To me, this one is an obvious stinker, but my ego is small enough that I don't mind being proven wrong.

[shelly]

Originally Posted by ATP

1970's

Please look at picture from Scott. This is a club house signature. I was trying to show that a vintage signature of Mantle is not from the Seventies. From around 68 on was the signature we see the most.
In regards to the cut that started this all my opinion stands.

[MikeKam]

Originally Posted by shelly

This is a vintage Mantle signature not the 70's My bottom lineon the cut.

Attachment 171421

That's a much earlier signature than the 1970s.

FWIW, I think its good.

[ATP]

Originally Posted by shelly

This is a vintage Mantle signature not the 70's My bottom lineon the cut.

Attachment 171421

Hi Shelly, I am looking at this on my phone, but I am pretty certain that the example you posted is a clubhouse of mantle from the 1960's, so no it wouldn't look anything like the one the OP is asking about :-)

[shelly]

Originally Posted by ATP

Hi Shelly, I am looking at this on my phone, but I am pretty certain that the example you posted is a clubhouse of mantle from the 1960's, so no it wouldn't look anything like the one the OP is asking about :-)

Sorry posted wrong ball it is a clubhouse.

[Runscott]

The last one Shelly posted was an error - here is a vintage example Shelly asked me to post for him - a true vintage Mantle. 1970's was not vintage.

And Jeff - Shelly says: "Good eyes, Jeff - very well-done".

[shelly]

Originally Posted by MikeKam

That's a much earlier signature than the 1970s.

FWIW, I think its good.

Mike I was trying to show that a 70 autograph was his modern autograph not vintage.
Which autograph do you think is good.

[ATP]

Here's one that I think would be from the same era as the OP one style wise, probably a little more current.

[MikeKam]

Originally Posted by shelly

Mike I was trying to show that a 70 autograph was his modern autograph not vintage.
Which autograph do you think is good.

The one in the OP.

[ATP]

Originally Posted by Runscott

The last one Shelly posted was an error - here is a vintage example Shelly asked me to post for him - a true vintage Mantle. 1970's was not vintage.

And Jeff - Shelly says: "Good eyes, Jeff - very well-done".

Thanks Shelly :-)

When I originally used the term vintage, I should have been more specific, I meant 1970's all along. To me that is somewhat vintage :-) The examples I have had on balls from the early to about 1956 are drastically different. In my opinion, there are a ton of differences between his 1970 signature and the ones your see from the late 1980's and early 1990's too, like all the UDA ones. Mostly in the "K" but also other places. We may just have to agree to disagree on this one, just from what I can see in the scan I would probably be comfortable buying it.

[Runscott]

Jeff - email sent.

[shelly]

That is what makes this place fun. I would pass on it even if I thought it was authentic. Only because so many great cuts are out there that have no question to its being authentic.
Just for the fun of it. Can any of you that feel this item authentic. Please send two exemplars of anything Mickey signed that has the second M that high from the Mickey.

[ATP]

I think the M is pretty high on the signed 1960 card I posted earlier. I just doesn't stick out quite as much because it's stacked and there isn't nearly the gap between the M and the a. I will look later tonight and see what I can find.

[Runscott]

I would like to see a Mantle that looks like the one in the OP - not just a few letters, but an entire autograph.

[shelly]

Originally Posted by ATP

I think the M is pretty high on the signed 1960 card I posted earlier. I just doesn't stick out quite as much because it's stacked and there isn't nearly the gap between the M and the a. I will look later tonight and see what I can find.

Signed straight across not up and down.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by shelly

Just for the fun of it. Can any of you that feel this item authentic. Please send two exemplars of anything Mickey signed that has the second M that high from the Mickey.

Originally Posted by Runscott

I would like to see a Mantle that looks like the one in the OP - not just a few letters, but an entire autograph.

The silence is deafening.

[ATP]

Sorry been busy with Christmas stuff, best I can do for tonight. This one is from 1977, is written at an upward angle, and has the M in Mantle a similar distance in height from the first name. Here are the two for comparison. The M really isn't that high on either of these, it's just somewhat of an illusion because of the angle of the signature and the square cropping of the photo. This example really only addresses the height that Shelly wanted to see another example of, it doesn't address Scott's request for one that matches letter for letter :-) Wanted to post something to look at though as I wouldn't want anyone to go deaf from silence poisoning :-)

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by ATP

Sorry been busy with Christmas stuff, best I can do for tonight. This one is from 1977, is written at an upward angle, and has the M in Mantle a similar distance in height from the first name. Here are the two for comparison. The M really isn't that high on either of these, it's just somewhat of an illusion because of the angle of the signature and the square cropping of the photo. This example really only addresses the height that Shelly wanted to see another example of, it doesn't address Scott's request for one that matches letter for letter :-) Wanted to post something to look at though as I wouldn't want anyone to go deaf from silence poisoning :-)

Jeff, nothing is more important than the internet and responding to people who you have never met.

[jbhofmann]

Originally Posted by ATP

Sorry been busy with Christmas stuff, best I can do for tonight. This one is from 1977, is written at an upward angle, and has the M in Mantle a similar distance in height from the first name. Here are the two for comparison. The M really isn't that high on either of these, it's just somewhat of an illusion because of the angle of the signature and the square cropping of the photo. This example really only addresses the height that Shelly wanted to see another example of, it doesn't address Scott's request for one that matches letter for letter :-) Wanted to post something to look at though as I wouldn't want anyone to go deaf from silence poisoning :-)

When measuring the First "M" compared to the Second "M" they only have 2MM difference from the highest point to lowest point when using an e-ruler on my computer. I think you're right that an illusion is somewhat playing tricks on our eyes.

[MikeKam]

Originally Posted by shelly

That is what makes this place fun. I would pass on it even if I thought it was authentic. Only because so many great cuts are out there that have no question to its being authentic.
Just for the fun of it. Can any of you that feel this item authentic. Please send two exemplars of anything Mickey signed that has the second M that high from the Mickey.

I've seen a good number of examples that have the second M higher than the "Mickey," don't see why this is a sticking point.

[shelly]

Thanks for all the post. I stand by my what I think but I must say you guys did your jobs. It just does not look right to me. Like I said why buy something when there are so much nicer ones that have no question about it.

[jbhofmann]

Originally Posted by shelly

Thanks for all the post. I stand by my what I think but I must say you guys did your jobs. It just does not look right to me. Like I said why buy something when there are so much nicer ones that have no question about it.

Rare variation....duh hahha

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by ATP

This example really only addresses the height that Shelly wanted to see another example of, it doesn't address Scott's request for one that matches letter for letter :-) Wanted to post something to look at though as I wouldn't want anyone to go deaf from silence poisoning :-)

Also, I did not ask for one that matches letter for letter; however, when one or two letters stand out as being so different from anything the signer ever produced, it's worth noting. My original statement (expanded here) was that when an autograph looks off;i.e-your gut feeling is that it's bad, then it's worth going over it letter by letter. In this case, the 'y' in Mickey stood out as UNIQUE. 'Unique' is a big deal - even 2-3 or 5-10 would be a big deal in terms of the huge population of Mantle autographs. Also, for that time period, the 'n' looks absolutely nothing like any of the autographs Mike produced. Two letters in a single autograph that are 'anomalies' are a big deal. This is not a 'drunk Mantle' signature, or you might make that allowance;to the contrary, having two 'M's in the same Mantle that both are done this well, is actually not the norm, even in Mantle's best examples, as you can see from Mike's examples.

But I agree with Shelly - you guys certainly did your research and gave great response. Thanks.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by shelly

Thanks for all the post. I stand by my what I think but I must say you guys did your jobs. It just does not look right to me. Like I said why buy something when there are so much nicer ones that have no question about it.

That's really the key thing here - all of our opinions are only that.

[ATP]

Thanks for the kudos Shelly and Scott. Regarding the Y, I think it looks odd because of the missing ink on the line across. The scan isn't detailed enough to see it, but it looks like the pen caught air on that and another part and may account for it. I think a high quality scan would show it better, you really can't get in close to see it well. Either way, it's fun to talk about the Mantles that are more difficult. We get tired of just saying no on the Bananas and Marinos, and yes on the UDA ones. Personally, I really like looking at the ones from rookie year up until the 1980s or so. It's quite interesting to see the evolution of his signature up to the point that he was signing all the time at shows.

[Runscott]

Jeff - if there is another line that we can't see, that would be even worse. It goes in totally the wrong direction for a Mantle 'y'. The 'n' is also significant - if you are an 'up and over' guy on your letters, then try going to 'over and up'. It's nearly impossible. Mantle worked very, very hard to change his signature - there was no going back to the techniques of the early to mid-fifties.

[ATP]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Jeff - if there is another line that we can't see, that would be even worse. It goes in totally the wrong direction for a Mantle 'y'. The 'n' is also significant - if you are an 'up and over' guy on your letters, then try going to 'over and up'. It's nearly impossible. Mantle worked very, very hard to change his signature - there was no going back to the techniques of the early to mid-fifties.

You must be seeing something I cannot on the Y, I see it as missing ink and still going the correct way, finishing on the strainght up stroke. I added, in red, where I think the pen got air and is making the Y look like it is not typical, at least to me.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by ATP

Regarding the Y, I think it looks odd because of the missing ink on the line across. The scan isn't detailed enough to see it, but it looks like the pen caught air on that and another part and may account for it.

Agreed, but this is part of the issue that makes it look "off" to me. Throughout the signature the pressure is odd. Very light in some areas much heavier in others... In a manner inconsistent with his typical patterns. It has an unusual light "whispy" look overall, where he usually employed a heavier hand with more even pressure. In an earlier post I noted it had a feminine feel.

In my opinion, I wouldn't rule out it could be an authentic, yet strange anomaly. But I'd always have doubts about it and would not choose it for my collection.

[shelly]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

Agreed, but this is part of the issue that makes it look "off" to me. Throughout the signature the pressure is odd. Very light in some areas much heavier in others... In a manner inconsistent with his typical patterns. It has an unusual light "whispy" look overall, where he usually employed a heavier hand with more even pressure. In an earlier post I noted it had a feminine feel.

In my opinion, I wouldn't rule out it could be an authentic, yet strange anomaly. But I'd always have doubts about it and would not choose it for my collection.

Yea that what I said plus a little bit else. Go get em zip

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by ATP

You must be seeing something I cannot on the Y, I see it as missing ink and still going the correct way, finishing on the strainght up stroke. I added, in red, where I think the pen got air and is making the Y look like it is not typical, at least to me.

Jeff, I see what you are saying now;however, with the missing stroke in place, it still looks horrible, but it is going in the correct direction.

[MikeKam]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

Agreed, but this is part of the issue that makes it look "off" to me. Throughout the signature the pressure is odd. Very light in some areas much heavier in others... In a manner inconsistent with his typical patterns. It has an unusual light "whispy" look overall, where he usually employed a heavier hand with more even pressure. In an earlier post I noted it had a feminine feel.

In my opinion, I wouldn't rule out it could be an authentic, yet strange anomaly. But I'd always have doubts about it and would not choose it for my collection.

Changing pressures could likely be a result of him holding an autograph book and possibly walking/moving rather than it being flat on top of something.

[Runscott]

It is too well done

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

[jbhofmann]

I went ahead and bought this piece for the following reasons:
a) It fits my purpose--custom cut card that I'll build...cheaper, smallish and I'm not destroying something really cool
b) If it was forged, its a style I have never seen before and it just seems highly unlikely that someone that "skilled" wouldn't have created more

It's not the greatest but basically the positives outweighed the negatives.

[shelly]

Originally Posted by jbhofmann

I went ahead and bought this piece for the following reasons:
a) It fits my purpose--custom cut card that I'll build...cheaper, smallish and I'm not destroying something really cool
b) If it was forged, its a style I have never seen before and it just seems highly unlikely that someone that "skilled" wouldn't have created more

It's not the greatest but basically the positives outweighed the negatives.

If you like it that is all that counts.

[jbhofmann]

Originally Posted by shelly

If you like it that is all that counts.

I'll post high res scans when it's in hand.


If I'm dumb, I'm dumb.

[Runscott]

Joel,

Another good hint that something is a forgery: if you are able to purchase it for 50-70% of what a similar item would normally go for.