Help with a Mantle

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by mr2686

I bet the Snider and Mays are clunkers too.

I have never seen an authentic Snider and Mays on a baseball with a forged Mantle.

[daves_resale_shop]

So the ball is in a huge shadow box and you can't really see the mays other than his first name which looks good, second look at the duke and it's definitely bad

[7nohitter]

Hey Dave,

Ya, Mantle is bad and that Snider is definitely no good.

[GrayGhost]

All bad

[daves_resale_shop]

Much appreciated

[Fballguy]

No opinion on the ball as I'm not much of an autograph collector. But I like reading these threads because I find it interesting how confident people are declaring signatures bad. Often done with such authority that no accompanying explanation is required. Just the word "bad" itself. I don't say that to offend, I just think it's funny.

There seems to be an expectation of precision that would be hard for a machine to replicate never mind a human being. How do you account for being tired or rushed or drunk or in a bad mood or having a sore hand or getting old or countless other considerations.

Judging autographs, including paid certification, seems very arbitrary to me and more than a little dubious. I find it's always best to trust your own opinion and if you think it's good, go for it. Unless you're standing in front of the person when they sign it, nobody will really ever know, with 100% certainty, one way or the other.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by Fballguy

I don't say that to offend, I just think it's funny.

Really?

[Fballguy]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Really?

Well...Unless you're easily offended.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by Fballguy

No opinion on the ball as I'm not much of an autograph collector. But I like reading these threads because I find it interesting how confident people are declaring signatures bad. Often done with such authority that no accompanying explanation is required. Just the word "bad" itself. I don't say that to offend, I just think it's funny.

There seems to be an expectation of precision that would be hard for a machine to replicate never mind a human being. How do you account for being tired or rushed or drunk or in a bad mood or having a sore hand or getting old or countless other considerations.

Judging autographs, including paid certification, seems very arbitrary to me and more than a little dubious. I find it's always best to trust your own opinion and if you think it's good, go for it. Unless you're standing in front of the person when they sign it, nobody will really ever know, with 100% certainty, one way or the other.

spoken like a true NON-autograph collector. When you have seen so many fakes after 10 years of looking at Mantle, they are really easy to see. EASY EASY EASY. So the rest of your comments are pointless but appreciated from a novice. For instance... Your opinion on autographs holds ZERO weight.

[steve B]

Damn computer! I had typed what I thought was a really good reply, and it wouldn't post, timed out and it's all gone. (&())*!!!

Got to try again, hope it works, getting really tired of Edge.

Steve B

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Fballguy

No opinion on the ball as I'm not much of an autograph collector. But I like reading these threads because I find it interesting how confident people are declaring signatures bad. Often done with such authority that no accompanying explanation is required. Just the word "bad" itself. I don't say that to offend, I just think it's funny.

There seems to be an expectation of precision that would be hard for a machine to replicate never mind a human being. How do you account for being tired or rushed or drunk or in a bad mood or having a sore hand or getting old or countless other considerations.

Judging autographs, including paid certification, seems very arbitrary to me and more than a little dubious. I find it's always best to trust your own opinion and if you think it's good, go for it. Unless you're standing in front of the person when they sign it, nobody will really ever know, with 100% certainty, one way or the other.

Lets see if the second try works.

Here's my take as what most would call a non-autograph collector or since I have a few, either obtained in person or that I fell confident in maybe a casual autograph collector.

Many of the people posting have decades of experience as either collectors or dealers, and have handled a LOT of autographs and no doubt seen a lot of fakes.
In your field would you take the opinion if a coworker with decades of experience, or dismiss it? I know what my choice would be.

In machining (I'll get to the machines stuff later) there's a tool called a go/no go guage. If the part fits one slot but not another it's good if not it's bad.
Anyone who handles the same sort of item for a long time and sees both good and bad builds up a sort of mental library of what's good and what's bad.
The benefit we get here is that in that context the experienced guys are willing to share and help us build the same sort of mental library. Mantle is brought up often enough that I have gotten to the point of making a bit of a game of it. I make my decision, than wait for the opinions I respect to see if I'm right. I've gotten to the point of being able to spot a few bad ones and a few good ones, but not enough that I'd spend any money on my opinion.

Sharing or not sharing the details is probably a difficult decision. If the details are shared, it lets a faker know what mistakes to avoid. If it's not shared the info doesn't get to others, and eventually dies with the person who knew it. I feel what we get here is a great tradeoff, we get to build our mental library, and a faker would have to do some real work to learn.

As far as machines not duplicating things exactly compared to people, duplicating things precisely is exactly what machines do. That's why I had questions on the Dak Prescott autopenned cards. I saw tiny differences that made me think a machine wasn't involved unless there was more than one. But I also saw a really amazing degree of precision. I still don't know if a modern autopen can add tiny differences, but I know the old ones couldn't.

When I look at an autograph to buy I ask myself a few basic questions that lead me to the decision which I mostly base on my confidence it's real and the price.

The biggest is whether the item existed during the players lifetime.
After that,
Does the item make sense
Is it in a commonly faked format, or one that's less valuable or saleable.
Is it priced in a way that makes sense. In other words, would it be sensible for a faker to make the item. Cost of the item vs added value from the autograph. compared to the selling price.
What is the source
What are their other items.

If the answers to those are "right" I feel confident it's real. I could obviously still be wrong, but it's less likely (except for the first question, a no there guarantees a fake) If the answers are "wrong" it could still be real, but unless it's really cheap, I'll usually pass.

I could scan and post a new thread with examples, possibly for the amusement of the more experienced guys Just let me down easy on any I botched.

If you're looking for something close to scientific certainty, you won't usually find it with autographs. I do think that some of the very experienced dealers can get amazingly close though.
It's also good to reject what doesn't really fit as "good" out of caution especially for commonly faked things. Sure, injured, old, drunk, whatever may affect the signature, but those might not be common. (Or as I've heard for Mantle may be very common)

Steve B

[Fballguy]

Originally Posted by steve B

When I look at an autograph to buy I ask myself a few basic questions that lead me to the decision which I mostly base on my confidence it's real and the price.

The biggest is whether the item existed during the players lifetime.
After that,
Does the item make sense
Is it in a commonly faked format, or one that's less valuable or saleable.
Is it priced in a way that makes sense. In other words, would it be sensible for a faker to make the item. Cost of the item vs added value from the autograph. compared to the selling price.
What is the source
What are their other items.

If the answers to those are "right" I feel confident it's real.

Bingo and good reply. Pretty much what I said in my last paragraph. Trust your gut more than "does that loop in his signature look right?" Conditions are always different. Signatures from the same person look different based on conditions. To think it's that easy to separate the fakes from the real thing is something autograph collectors tell themselves to make them feel better.

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Fballguy

No opinion on the ball as I'm not much of an autograph collector.

You should have stopped there. Your opinions about how people judge autographs is obviously based on this sentence. If you had experience you would understand how, in most situations, telling a real from fake autograph is quite easy. This knowledge is what experience brings to many, just like in all things in life.

Originally Posted by Fballguy

But I like reading these threads because I find it interesting how confident people are declaring signatures bad. Often done with such authority that no accompanying explanation is required. Just the word "bad" itself. I don't say that to offend, I just think it's funny.

When people ask for an opinion, we give it. I, nor anyone, is obligated to go into details as to why they think an auto is good or bad. Many don't for exactly the reason Steve mentioned.
I find it amusing when people make that statement that they don't mean to offend. They say that as they know what they said is offensive and think that statement somehow makes it less offensive. Perhaps instead of writing it, choose a way to say it that actually isn't offensive. or say nothing if you have nothing constructive to add.

Originally Posted by Fballguy

There seems to be an expectation of precision that would be hard for a machine to replicate never mind a human being. How do you account for being tired or rushed or drunk or in a bad mood or having a sore hand or getting old or countless other considerations.

Again, perhaps if you had knowledge about autograph collecting, you would understand that experience can help to account for many of those variables. There are always autos that people do not feel comfortable giving an opinion on because of those situations and we will often opine that we can't tell for sure.

BTW, machines can replicate things precisely. Autopens have been in use since JFK and are able to be spotted often because they are so exact. If you are interested there is a book written in 1965 by Charles Hamilton about JFK's use of the autopen back then.
https://www.amazon.com/Robot-That-He.../dp/B000S3RQ56

Originally Posted by Fballguy

Judging autographs, including paid certification, seems very arbitrary to me and more than a little dubious. I find it's always best to trust your own opinion and if you think it's good, go for it.

Judging autos seems arbitrary to you because you, admittedly, aren't really an autograph collector. If you were, then you would understand that each of us has a method that they feels works for them. Do any of us bat 1000%, of course not, but it certainly isn't arbitrary.
Your two statements here seem contradictory. Judging autos is arbitrary, but wouldn't that make your own opinion the same? Why would you trust the opinion of the least experienced person in the room instead of the most? People come here for opinions as they know that there are many very very experienced collectors and dealers here who will offer their opinion freely. Certainly it makes sense to want to hear their opinion especially if you don't feel you know the signature well.

Originally Posted by Fballguy

Trust your gut more than "does that loop in his signature look right?" Conditions are always different. Signatures from the same person look different based on conditions.

Just because something can be signed doesn't mean it is. Even if all of Steve's criteria are fulfilled doesn't mean it doesn't have to look like the person's signature. It does. Those loops mean something. If you knew anything about Mantle, you would know that his signature changed in a very distinct ways over the course of his career. Many people can tell a 1955 sig from a 1957 sig quite easily. Once the beginning of the auto boom in the late 70's/early 80's, Mantle took special pride in his auto and was a machine. He could be fall down drunk nearly unconscious and his auto was almost exact.
My father player country music in the 70's and Mantle and Martin would come into a club he played in frequently in Manhattan(O'Lunney's). I have a couple of Mantle autos from those times where he was absolutely hammered to the point of nearly passing out and they look almost identical to standard sig from that era. Again all of this info comes from experience, which you obviously do not have. Just because you don't know this doesn't mean others don't.

Originally Posted by Fballguy

To think it's that easy to separate the fakes from the real thing is something autograph collectors tell themselves to make them feel better.

This is the exact type of thing someone who knows little about autographs tells themselves to make themselves feel smarter than everyone else. If you knew something about autographs, you would know that it can be very easy to tell bad sigs from good. Just because you can't, doesn't mean others can't.

The take away is that knowledge is power. People here have knowledge and share it freely with pretty much all who ask. I think that it is pretty cool that there is a place like this around to help people. I can't count how many people have been steered away from bad purchases by the people in this forum. If you don't think the expertise here has value then you don't have to take advantage of it, but it is rude to ridicule those who offer their assistance freely.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

You should have stopped there. Your opinions about how people judge autographs is obviously based on this sentence. If you had experience you would understand how, in most situations, telling a real from fake autograph is quite easy. This knowledge is what experience brings to many, just like in all things in life.



When people ask for an opinion, we give it. I, nor anyone, is obligated to go into details as to why they think an auto is good or bad. Many don't for exactly the reason Steve mentioned.
I find it amusing when people make that statement that they don't mean to offend. They say that as they know what they said is offensive and think that statement somehow makes it less offensive. Perhaps instead of writing it, choose a way to say it that actually isn't offensive. or say nothing if you have nothing constructive to add.



Again, perhaps if you had knowledge about autograph collecting, you would understand that experience can help to account for many of those variables. There are always autos that people do not feel comfortable giving an opinion on because of those situations and we will often opine that we can't tell for sure.

BTW, machines can replicate things precisely. Autopens have been in use since JFK and are able to be spotted often because they are so exact. If you are interested there is a book written in 1965 by Charles Hamilton about JFK's use of the autopen back then.
https://www.amazon.com/Robot-That-He.../dp/B000S3RQ56



Judging autos seems arbitrary to you because you, admittedly, aren't really an autograph collector. If you were, then you would understand that each of us has a method that they feels works for them. Do any of us bat 1000%, of course not, but it certainly isn't arbitrary.
Your two statements here seem contradictory. Judging autos is arbitrary, but wouldn't that make your own opinion the same? Why would you trust the opinion of the least experienced person in the room instead of the most? People come here for opinions as they know that there are many very very experienced collectors and dealers here who will offer their opinion freely. Certainly it makes sense to want to hear their opinion especially if you don't feel you know the signature well.



Just because something can be signed doesn't mean it is. Even if all of Steve's criteria are fulfilled doesn't mean it doesn't have to look like the person's signature. It does. Those loops mean something. If you knew anything about Mantle, you would know that his signature changed in a very distinct ways over the course of his career. Many people can tell a 1955 sig from a 1957 sig quite easily. Once the beginning of the auto boom in the late 70's/early 80's, Mantle took special pride in his auto and was a machine. He could be fall down drunk nearly unconscious and his auto was almost exact.
My father player country music in the 70's and Mantle and Martin would come into a club he played in frequently in Manhattan(O'Lunney's). I have a couple of Mantle autos from those times where he was absolutely hammered to the point of nearly passing out and they look almost identical to standard sig from that era. Again all of this info comes from experience, which you obviously do not have. Just because you don't know this doesn't mean others don't.



This is the exact type of thing someone who knows little about autographs tells themselves to make themselves feel smarter than everyone else. If you knew something about autographs, you would know that it can be very easy to tell bad sigs from good. Just because you can't, doesn't mean others can't.

The take away is that knowledge is power. People here have knowledge and share it freely with pretty much all to all who ask. I think that it is pretty cool that there is a place like this around to help people. I can't count how many people have been steered away from bad purchases by the people in this forum. If you don't think the expertise here has value then you don't have to take advantage of it, but it is rude to ridicule those who offer their assistance freely.

Well written, Mark.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Just because something can be signed doesn't mean it is. Even if all of Steve's criteria are fulfilled doesn't mean it doesn't have to look like the person's signature. It does. Those loops mean something. If you knew anything about Mantle, you would know that his signature changed in a very distinct ways over the course of his career. Many people can tell a 1955 sig from a 1957 sig quite easily. Once the beginning of the auto boom in the late 70's/early 80's, Mantle took special pride in his auto and was a machine. He could be fall down drunk nearly unconscious and his auto was almost exact.
My father player country music in the 70's and Mantle and Martin would come into a club he played in frequently in Manhattan(O'Lunney's). I have a couple of Mantle autos from those times where he was absolutely hammered to the point of nearly passing out and they look almost identical to standard sig from that era. Again all of this info comes from experience, which you obviously do not have. Just because you don't know this doesn't mean others don't. .

That's the bit he missed. The questions I ask are just basic
criteria, for someone inexperienced they can eliminate a fair portion of bad stuff, but nowhere near all. That's where having that mental library of the loops etc makes the difference. And why I don't spend much on autographs. Maybe someday, but most of the time I don't feel I'm ready yet.

Originally Posted by Lordstan

This is the exact type of thing someone who knows little about autographs tells themselves to make themselves feel smarter than everyone else. If you knew something about autographs, you would know that it can be very easy to tell bad sigs from good. Just because you can't, doesn't mean others can't.

The take away is that knowledge is power. People here have knowledge and share it freely with pretty much all who ask. I think that it is pretty cool that there is a place like this around to help people. I can't count how many people have been steered away from bad purchases by the people in this forum. If you don't think the expertise here has value then you don't have to take advantage of it, but it is rude to ridicule those who offer their assistance freely.

That is also very true. It's easier to spot most bad stuff than good stuff. The help available here is amazing, both as short term help like "is this ok" to longer term learning so you don't have to ask.

To the experienced guys who provide that here's something that needs to be said more often by the rest of us.
Thank you!

Steve B