Double X (Foxx) and Mantle Opinions

[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.

[ATP]

Originally Posted by 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.

You must be seeing something I cannot on the Y, I see it as missing ink and still going the correct way, finishing on the strainght up stroke. I added, in red, where I think the pen got air and is making the Y look like it is not typical, at least to me.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by ATP

You must be seeing something I cannot on the Y, I see it as missing ink and still going the correct way, finishing on the strainght up stroke. I added, in red, where I think the pen got air and is making the Y look like it is not typical, at least to me.

Jeff, I see what you are saying now;however, with the missing stroke in place, it still looks horrible, but it is going in the correct direction.

[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.

[shelly]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

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.

Yea that what I said plus a little bit else. Go get em zip

[MikeKam]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

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.

Changing pressures could likely be a result of him holding an autograph book and possibly walking/moving rather than it being flat on top of something.