Mantle Help needed!

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

Or just in your mind an acceptable common variation?

Absolutely.

[Mr. Zipper]

Here is my 2 cents…

I didn't like the Mantle for the following reasons. The “ic” has an odd slant; the right side of the M in Mantle is flared out. You see that in authentic examples on occasion, but far more often on fakes. I hate the pinched, open “a,” and the “n” looks clumsy and carefully applied. Lastly, the placement is sloppy and not nicely spaced and centered as he usually did. That's five red flags.

That said, there are some subtle positive attributes as well. Nice speed through the Ms, and a few other very subtle things I like to see, but don’t put on public chat boards.

Chris has studied Mantle far longer than me and I have a great deal of respect for his “eye.” The “eye” picks up on the “rhythm and feel” and goes beyond technical analysis. Sometimes this is what is needed to identify atypical but authentic examples. (Or examples that look great superficially, but look “off” for reasons hard to explain.)

My specialty is space and I have studied Neil Armstrong autographs for 20 years. After viewing thousands of them over time, I have seen sloppy train wrecks that fail on a technical basis, but I knew they were authentic because of very subtle cues that were hard to explain. Conversely, examples that 98% of dealers and collectors would think were fine, I knew they were very skilled fakes because they looked a tiny bit “off.” Trying to explain why is like the parents of identical twins trying to explain to others how they can tell them apart… but they always do.

Getting back to the Mantle, I trust Chris and his experience. However, assuming it is authentic, it is an example I would never want in my collection. Why pick an example that people could reasonably question when there are so many undoubtedly good examples available?

[Econteachert205]

Thanks guys, I was looking at only some of the technical factors steve mentioned without considering flow and overall construction, very helpful.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

Here is my 2 cents…

I didn't like the Mantle for the following reasons. The “ic” has an odd slant; the right side of the M in Mantle is flared out. You see that in authentic examples on occasion, but far more often on fakes. I hate the pinched, open “a,” and the “n” looks clumsy and carefully applied. Lastly, the placement is sloppy and not nicely spaced and centered as he usually did. That's five red flags.

That said, there are some subtle positive attributes as well. Nice speed through the Ms, and a few other very subtle things I like to see, but don’t put on public chat boards.

Chris has studied Mantle far longer than me and I have a great deal of respect for his “eye.” The “eye” picks up on the “rhythm and feel” and goes beyond technical analysis. Sometimes this is what is needed to identify atypical but authentic examples. (Or examples that look great superficially, but look “off” for reasons hard to explain.)

My specialty is space and I have studied Neil Armstrong autographs for 20 years. After viewing thousands of them over time, I have seen sloppy train wrecks that fail on a technical basis, but I knew they were authentic because of very subtle cues that were hard to explain. Conversely, examples that 98% of dealers and collectors would think were fine, I knew they were very skilled fakes because they looked a tiny bit “off.” Trying to explain why is like the parents of identical twins trying to explain to others how they can tell them apart… but they always do.

Getting back to the Mantle, I trust Chris and his experience. However, assuming it is authentic, it is an example I would never want in my collection. Why pick an example that people could reasonably question when there are so many undoubtedly good examples available?

I AGREE "The “ic” has an odd slant; the right side of the M in Mantle is flared out. You see that in authentic examples on occasion, but far more often on fakes. I hate the pinched, open “a,” and the “n” looks clumsy and carefully applied. Lastly, the placement is sloppy and not nicely spaced and centered as he usually did. That's five red flags."

While there are 5 flags, there are 5 authentic characteristics I like the way the ink is blotted, dotted or flicked at the beginning of both "M"s. I like the angle of the "Mickey" in comparison to the angle of the "Mantle". I like (don't love) the interaction from the "M" to the "a". Not the best of flicks, but not cartoonish like a Florida Forgery. While the "a" is open, it is a strong sign that you can see the pressure point on the top left of it. While the "n" is a bit atypical, at least it's pointed. The "tle" would also have the slant I'm looking for.

I agree with Chris that it is authentic, although I would love to see a good scan of the entire picture and would not want it in my collection....Unless that pic was also signed by Maris.

[timzcardz]

Never mind . . . .

[shelly]

It was signed by reggie jackson.
I think one of the most important points about that signature is the slant of tle and how perfect he crossed the t. There are things that we know make a bad Mantle this had some of them but not enough to make it a forgery. Just plane sloppy. If you have a piece of garbage like the Florida signatures I just put up red faces. If it something that makes you hesitate you say why. Not its just my opinion or my eye knows its bad.
Zip and Fud you dont have to write a book either