Double X (Foxx) and Mantle Opinions

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.