Some autos I won at a local auction for $10

[bullgill]

I was in disbelief when I was the starting bidder at $5 pet lot. And won them for the starting bid. Not the first time I have done this at this auction though. Are these legit autos? The print is exactly 8x10 and under the matting it is copyrighted. Thanks for any help.[IMG][/IMG]

[Duluth Eskimo]

Photo is a fake.

[bullgill]

Originally Posted by Duluth Eskimo

Photo is a fake.

It's not a photo, it is an art print that apparently came in two different sizes. It is however printed on photo paper.

[rand1com]

The Mantle, Mays, and Snider autographs are bad forgeries. Makes no difference photo or print.

The baseball is tougher to tell as the picture is blurred. It could be authentic but would need a clear picture to be sure.

[Exhibitman]

All forged.

[Bpm0014]

You spent $9 too much...

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by bullgill

It's not a photo, it is an art print that apparently came in two different sizes. It is however printed on photo paper.

ink jet printing on photo paper didn't exist in Mantle's lifetime. So even if the autographs weren't terrible, it's fake.

[bullgill]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

ink jet printing on photo paper didn't exist in Mantle's lifetime. So even if the autographs weren't terrible, it's fake.

He died in 1995, all of these guys signed stuff well into the 1980's. That is why they have so much stuff that they signed. Inkjet printing was invented in the 70's probably by polaroid. see above, the same photo signed by all three and certified by JSA.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

ink jet printing on photo paper didn't exist in Mantle's lifetime. So even if the autographs weren't terrible, it's fake.

There is no reason facts should get in the way of a sale for profit. Like the OP said they can find a sucker, wait I mean a complete moron, no that wasn't it either, oh yes a collector willing to take a chance at $100 for a nice profit because really that is all that matters.

[bullgill]

Originally Posted by bnorth

There is no reason facts should get in the way of a sale for profit. Like the OP said they can find a sucker, wait I mean a complete moron, no that wasn't it either, oh yes a collector willing to take a chance at $100 for a nice profit because really that is all that matters.

If you read what I posted, I am not in the business of duping people. I have not had a return or negative feedback on ebay for at least 10 years of selling everything from antiques to modern. This is the main reason why I want to send these sigs in for authentication. Not just for monetary reasons but for integrity. I have posted this for honest opinions and only received negativity with no explanations. This is not an obvious fake in my opinion, there are several examples of authenticated pieces of the same photo and would like an explanation as to why these seem like a forgery. If I can get at least some explanation as to why they are forgeries I will toss them in the trash. The photo is an original 1986 glossy print on photo paper. Just as this one that was JSA certified. https://showpiecessports.com/collect...o-with-jsa-coa

[bullgill]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

ink jet printing on photo paper didn't exist in Mantle's lifetime. So even if the autographs weren't terrible, it's fake.

Here is a photo from 1989, clearly inkjet.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/36495530584...Bk9SR-ae5bWaZA

[Lordstan]

IMO, the litho is not good. Why? Because there are things about the autos that look off. Most people on the forum will not go into details as to why for a couple reasons.
1) No one wants to educate scammers on how to make their forgeries better
(not saying you a scammer, but you are kidding yourself if you don't think scammers watch sites like this, and others, to get tips on how to make their scams work better.)
2) No one wants to get into an argument with someone about about their opinion on an auto. If I say, I don't like the slant on a letter, then someone else chimes in they like it and now there is a back and forth about it. It's been done in the past. It's gotten messy and after a time, we just stopped doing it.

As Kevin pointed out, there are multiple differences between the good ones you posted and yours.

We each have our reasons for saying what we do. You can either trust the expertise of those here or not. No one here owes anyone else an explanation. Heck, even if you send to PSA and they fail it, they wont give you any explanation other than their standard form letter about flow, pressure, formation, etc.
It really shouldn't be a shock for someone to question why you are sending it in after pretty much everyone chimed in that it was bad. I guess it would make more sense to us if you got mixed opinions and waned a tie breaker. I am sure you can see why it might come off a little insulting to have everyone give he same opinion and then you disregard it.

Also, Just remember, that PSA does not certify or guarantee an item is authentic. They offer opinions only, just like us. Even then, you have no idea who actually is giving it. Is it a kid who just got hired 6 months ago or someone with 20yrs experience? No one knows.

BTW, I agree with you, the three you posted in that single message yesterday are all bad.

[balltrash]

While this may appear, for some reason, to be on inkjet paper - it is not. These prints were done on heavy stock paper and are typically larger however someone trimmed this one down to a size which would allow for it to fit in a PSA holder.

Originally Posted by bullgill

Here is a photo from 1989, clearly inkjet.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/36495530584...Bk9SR-ae5bWaZA