Speaking of Mick...

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by Clark7781

I don't mean to be a stick in the mud as I cherish the people's opinion to voiced such in this thread. (Chris, loved your Youtube videos and respect your opinions.)

But in the context of the initial posters' post, the opinion of this borad would dictate if he keeps the autographed photo or not.

I know that if certain people say "no good" I read it as gospel. Chris, you are one of them. But Mr. I-don't-know-anyone-one-on-net54, they might need some more specifics.

So, to help our fellow forumite, from our experts, can you cite specifics why this autograph is no bueno...

Personally, I have a few thoughts as I would be hesitant, so please share yours.

Clark, I appreciate the nice comments.

I cannot, of course, speak for anyone else, but to learn autographs is to train your eyes. It really isn't as simple as this is wrong and that is wrong. I can reference formation, slant, etc., and it's not going to be understood by the casual autograph buyer.

It takes time to train your eyes. A lot of time. Forgeries are meant to have the appearance of looking authentic. And it works, because the majority of people who purchase autographs don't know anything about the autographs they are buying.

I would also like to throw in a personal analogy. I was always very good in math, and when I was in 6th grade, they took about dozen of us and threw us in a Geometry class. At the time I was already taking Algebra II in 6th grade, but when I started the Geometry class I just could not figure this thing out. I just didn't get it. Then all-of-a-sudden, three weeks into the Geometry class, it clicked.

With autographs your trained eyes will all-of-a-sudden click. But you have to keep at it. It's not a once-a-week thing.

Look at a 1963 circa Mantle autograph and compare it to a 1990 circa Mantle autograph. The same characteristics are there in both autographs, but only the trained eye will see it.

I hope this helps a little.