Little test for the rest
 

As some on here know, i mostly collect vintage Mantle photos, so am often over on the memorabilia side of the forum. However, I sometimes come over to the autograph side, usually to try and educate myself with regard to authentic Mantle autos.

Over the last 2 years, i feel I've improved in that area, entirely because of the help and significant number of posts and PMs from all the experts here on net54.

So, I was wondering if it would make any sense, and perhaps also be a bit of fun (as well as educational), if one or more of the experts could post some autographed material to test some of us newbies, i.e., "students of autographs" on the forum.

If anyone agrees, I think to make it relatively easy for everyone, we should limit each post to 5 autographed items, all by the same player, and an authentic autograph does not have to be included - although from a didactic standpoint it would be useful.

To succeed, if would be ideal if as many members as possible gave their opinions on each of the 5 autographs for each post and then see how each of us did when the expert posts his opinion/verdict - say, after 1 week.

To start with, I would choose Mantle, Ruth and Gehrig.

Craig

Craig, with all due respect, IMHO, I think this is a bad idea. There are a handful of people on these boards that I would consider autograph experts, I am for sure not one of them. I tried once to give an opinion, i failed and would not do it again. I would hate to lose these members because everyone else who passed a Mantle autograph quiz suddenly feels they are a "deemed" expert, when some of the true experts on these boards have been doing it longer than I have been born. I know we lost one well respected member because of this, and I would hate to lose any more.

Again just my 2 cents.

Agreed, I feel like although this could be informative it could also turn into a game of "gotcha". Looking at questionable autographs and giving opinions is one thing but to already know the answer and ask anyway (just to see who knows) just seems like a convoluted way of generating knowledge. There's been countless threads with both genuine and fake mantle autos and I feel that flipping through those should be enough to at least create a baseline level of what to look for. I understand that's not your intention but it just seems that these "real or fake" threads quickly dissolve into cheap shots and name calling.

O.K., I think both of you make very good points that I obviously had not thought of. Sorry, just thought it would be a fun and informative exercise, but I fully understand the reasons why this may not be the case. Another one bites the dust!

I would tend to say no because I feel there would be no winners. For example. what era do you want the Mantle, Ruth , and Gehrig from? As we all know their signatures, especially Mantle's , varied greatly during their lives. What happens to the signature your grandfather gave you of Mantle that he received from his second cousin's secretary who got it from some guy who supposedly washed Mantle's car that you have proudly displayed and framed and we all diss it?
Also how do TPAs enter into this?
How do we deal with a more obscure signature, such as ,for example Josh Gibson?
Lastly would we also be screening autographs that are in auctions to help decide to bid or not?
I agree with the above posts and would say not a good idea, but I respect the spirit with which you proposed the thread.

+1 on this.

Also you have to understand that a couple of the experts that chime in on this board are extremely well-respected full time dealers. They do offer their opinions for a fee, and it is much less than the two big guns in the hobby and I would trust their opinions more, to be honest. They don't have to share their opinions here for free, but I think they like to give something back to the hobby in that respect (it's also a good PR move!).

I'm working on an idea that might serve your purposes but its only in the paper planning stages at this point.

I, personally, would have liked to see this. But I know many of the experts/veterans on here have issues with it as it puts their expertise on the line. The reason why I liked the OP's suggestion is because many times we say something is "no good" or "good" but without explaining it. I've seen quite a few Mantles and Ted Williams' on here that were deemed fake, yet with no explanation and it really had me scratching my head as to why. A little knowledge sharing would be greatly appreciated at those times. I understand it gets repetitive with all the "real or not" posts on here, but just a line or two of why it's fake or real would really be useful.

Most of the time people will explain why they think something is fake if you ask.

Yeah, definitely, I know most of the guys on here are really helpful and giving of their time. It's just that I don't want to seem like the only one who's "not seeing it" and also didn't want to come across like I was challenging somebody's opinion.