Help with a Mantle ball
 

Bump. Opinions from our other resident experts will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...tz/mantles.jpg

Who was Becca Mantle? His sister?

I would assume this is on a Lee MacPhail or older ball?? I'm not that familiar with his old style, which I assume this is or is trying to be? It has characteristics I like and some I don't. For starters, I don't like the way the first M has 2 different pen pressures. I also don't really like the shape of the M's, though it could be more like his early sig, I don't know? I don't like baselines of Mickey or Mantle (droopy c, droopy a). I especially don't like that the "i" is not dotted. All 50+ items in my collection have a dotted "i" for whatever that's worth. I don't like the "tle" and the straight plane it's on.

I do like the apparent speed it was signed with, causing the pen to skip? I do like there is a slight "heavy spot' where the first "M" starts. I do like the interaction between the "Ma".

Personally, I couldn't say one way or another as much of my research does not include older versions. I imagine some characteristics are the same, but really don't know. The Lowly Mantle Collector wouldn't buy it, but I am buying less and less these days anyway...;)

Thanks very much, Chuck.

I wanted someone else to chime in first :D , but I had the same reaction. The pen pressure and speed appears to be inconsistant and that is a concern.

That said, if this is a fake, it's relatively deceptive and certainly a cut above the mass produced junk.

Thanks, Steve.

That version looks slightly similiar to this 1962 team ball posted for sale at Grandstand Sports. http://grandstandsports.com/pages/49337.htm

Bump.

I don't like it. The spacing of Mickey is off. It looks drawn to me. I think it's a pretty good fake.

the ink...
 

Although I'm not a Mantle expert, IMO the blue ink looks too 'fresh', almost as if it was signed yesterday. My initial gut feeling is to pass.....David, what are your thoughts? You've been around autographs for a long time.

Matt

Would it be dumb to say I like the "Mantle", but the "Mickey" looks suspect? I know it's either all-real or all-fake, but that's how I keep seeing it. Sorry to be of no help... I guess that's about as non-committal as it gets!

I'm NOT really expert on Mantle's signature, and I don't want to influence anyone's opinion.

Once again, thanks to all who have helped. (And any other opinions will be appreciated. I still haven't heard from one of the principle--if not the principle--resident Mantle experts!)

Let me repeat--as I made a huge error above--I am NOT any kind of an expert on Mantle's signature.

Perhaps it just a matter of the ink fading inconsistently or more pressure in some spots than others, but the more I look at it, the more it looks like some portions may have been gone over a second time.

:confused:

The "a" drops below the baseline... but other than that, from a "shape" standpoint, it looks pretty decent.

I'm looking forward to learning more...

I think it is an authentic "semi-early" Mantle--back when he was first evolving his style from what I'll call his "rookie years sig" to the beautiful sig were are most familiar with today.