We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
Here's an interesting PSA/DNA Mickey Mantle
Saw this on another sports card forum. Must've been authenticated back when they first started as these are horrible!
- Attachments: No photo uploads here
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by James on
-
Yes, those look terrible to me also. Pretty ridiculous actually. And for all four of those guys to sign on that small card? Each one would likely to have been sitting at a table to sign it to keep it from bending. So were they all at the same show? Or did the owner take it from one event to another to get each one to sign it while they were sitting down? Anyway, it's just kind of a stretch IMO. It doesn't add up to me. I'd probably be skeptical even if the autos looked better than they do. Moreover, I don't think Joe D. was typically signing like that after 1979. I could be wrong about that, but I don't think so. Anyway, not good work here PSA.
-
Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on
-
I know they make mistakes but I have a hard time believing PSA passed this as is.
-
Permalink Reply by Steve on
-
I got my first Mickey Mantle in person signed photo in 1979 and I can guarantee you he signed then just like we are used to seeing him sign. It looked nothing like that.
-
Permalink Reply by Dane on
-
I don't think that card was the card that was authenticated. If you look up the authentication, it doesn't mention all the "extra" names. Also, that doesn't appear to be an authentic PSA holder, since it's missing the PSA engraving.
-
Permalink Reply by Randy on
-
These guys were accustomed to signing their name on baseballs, photos, bats, or single signed cards where space was not so limited. This card is 3.5" x 2.5" and they were all signing their names across the 2.5" side. I believe they had to force their full signatures into a tiny space and although they don't look exactly like their larger signatures, each one has too many features that in my opinion reflect authentic signatures.
In my opinion, all of the signatures are authentic and I almost guarantee the Dimaggio and Martin are authentic. The Whitey Ford looks a little strange but not enough to discount its authenticity. I agree that the Mantle looks off due to the "M"'s primarily and the fact that he crossed the "t" into the "l" which he would virtually never do when there was plenty of space. However, I still think it is authentic. The other letters based on the very small size look good to me and the "antle" in relation the the "Mickey" also matches up with Mantle's normal baseline.
I realize I will probably be the only one on this forum to think these are authentic but I am not afraid to give my opinion and anyone who knows Dimaggio and Martin autographs well and looks closely at these autographs will conclude they are authentic.
I realize 3 of the Mantle recognized experts on this forum have already opined faux but if you look at the letter formation other than the "M"'s, I think you might be surprised.
The item checks out on the PSA/DNA web site as having been authenticated and although they only list Mantle as the primary signer, that is not unusual. They typically only list who they consider the best autograph on a multi-signed item on their web site.
Of course they could be wrong and all of you could be right but look at the Dimaggio and Martin closely and I think you will concur they are "Likely Authentic" at the very least.
-
Permalink Reply by Ian Baldock on
-
I gotta go with the naysayers. Though now Im afraid to criticize anything.
-
-
Can't blame you for that but since I'm disagreeing with only other voluntary members of this site, I'm not concerned.
Did you actually LOOK at the Martin and Dimaggio autographs closely?
-
-
Actually, I think the Martin is the worst of the bunch, but every one of them is way off in my opinion. I mean way off.....
-
-
Guess that's why an opinion cannot be proved or disproved by definition.
-
-
Not sure what you mean by "only other voluntary members of this site, I'm not concerned" but the Martin is awful. I have him going back to a 1953 yankee team ball and his signature never slanted to the right like this one. The Ford also has an uncharacteristic right slant and poor letter formation. The Mantle looks nothing like an authentic version, small space or not, and the Dimaggio ends up with an uncharacteristic line at the end of the "o", which is the way his sister used to sign. in my opinion, this entire card is a forgery, and not even a good one. that is why I said that I doubt PSA would pass this.
-
-
I believe its an 82 card I think the typical modern sigs at the time were what we usually see from the eighties. they are all so atypical Ford closest. I just have my doubts. I actually respect guys that go against the grain with opinions. Its easy to get on here and chime in when 5 guys in front say somethings bad or good and go along with it.
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
