Sorry for the bother, but another Mantle auto opinion please?

judgebuck

I bought this early Mantle photo and others of Mantle from the John Rogers group at the National a couple of years ago. Four of the photos were of him fishing. Each one of those four had "Mickey Mantle" written on the back. I don't know much about autographs, but I do know Mantle's early signature was different from his later signature. Could this be authentic, or is it likely just his name written by a newspaper employee or someone else?

[URL=http://s260.photobucket.com/user/dbuck01/media/IMG_0002-6.jpg.html][/URL]

0001-6.jpg.html][IMG]http://

[URL=http://s260.photobucket.com/user/dbuck01

jackstraw

It's hard to tell.. The Mantle looks like it's in his pen..

orioles93

Looks very similar to one of his early sigs to me.

judgebuck

Here's the photo itself.

[URL=http://s260.photobucket.com/user/dbuck01/media/IMG_0001-6.jpg.html][/URL]

Sorry, can't seem to show it.

1954

I have heard there is a serious issue with bad autographs in the Arkansas area. I was contacted by a dealer out of Arkansas wanting to know if I would be interested in buying a huge collection of autographs (mantles, ruth, 600 other players for $10K. I did it and PSA/DNA deemed the autos as fakes. I believe this came from the same group of people you are speaking about. I won't collect autographs again because of it.

mtcards

I know what youre saying. I have people call my shop all the time asking about selling autos and signed memorabilia and the first thing I ask them is if its authenticated. Wont touch it without it and from a reputable source. Havent seen many early Mantle's to tell on this one, but am pretty certain it looks nothing like the ones he signed later in life

Downtown1974

It almost looks like it was during a transition period from his older signature to his more modern "curvy" auto. I see attributes of both eras in the scan. Great photo!

Ironmanfan

I think it's simply someone on the newspaper staff ID'ing the photo subject unfortunately.

IMF

Dboneesq

<< <i>I think it's simply someone on the newspaper staff ID'ing the photo subject unfortunately. IMF >>


David ... I agree with Bill. Most of the newspaper photos I have seen have the subjects name written on the back for ID purposes. In addition, I don't think that looks like his early signature.

Here is the signature on your picture:


And here are three from PSA/DNA baseballs:

telephoto1

If you got them at the National and they weren't already being advertised and sold as autographed items...then they aren't.

judgebuck

Thanks, guys. When I bought them, they were not represented to me as being autographed. However, the signature on the back does look somewhat like a blend between his early and his later signature. I bought these right after they were sold to the Rogers group by the Miami Herald. And, since it appeared that some of the pictures were actually originals taken by staff photographers, I got curious. Thanks again.

magikbilly

<< <i>

<< <i>I think it's simply someone on the newspaper staff ID'ing the photo subject unfortunately. IMF >>


David ... I agree with Bill. Most of the newspaper photos I have seen have the subjects name written on the back for ID purposes. In addition, I don't think that looks like his early signature.

Here is the signature on your picture:


And here are three from PSA/DNA baseballs:




>>





It doesn't matter in this case as that is obviously not his signature, but in this context the fountain pen ink should be under the hide glue to be an earlier signature. This signature on this photo is by a person whose hand is already settled - an earlier Mantle is not this fluid, structure aside.


Eric