We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
Thurman Munson signed photo revisited
So, almost 2 years ago I posted a picture of a signed Thurman Munson photo which I obtained online, which I strongly felt and still feel is authentic and inquired about additional opinions on. Upon first posting, some members of this forum literally mocked me for believing it is real. By the end of the forum I had at least stimulated interesting conversation about whether it was authentic or not.
Today, I was perusing Hunt Auctions and came across another Thurman Munson signed photo, which arguably looks quite similar to the example I posted. It is lot #372 of their November 11, 2016 auction and the signed photo is included here. This Hunt Auctions signed photo includes a COA from JSA.
What is most interesting is it is the same photo, also signed in blue sharpie, although the Hunt Auctions piece shows some fading, probably due to exposure to sunlight, where the one I obtained may have been stored in a more safe environment. One of the biggest problems many members had with my signed photo was the M in Munson. The M in the Hunt Auction photo is nearly identical in formation to mine. The Thurman part of the Hunt's Munson signature also is nearly identical in formation to mine. In my opinion, they were both likely signed at the same time, at a give-away event of sorts in the mid 1970's.
Now revisiting my item (bottom) and the one in the Hunt Auctions (top), I'm curious as to what others think. Do you still believe my photo is not authentic? What about the Hunt Auctions signed photo? Authentic or not? Opinions. Comments?Hunt Auction #372 November 2016 signed Thurman Munson photo.
My Thurman Munson signed photo
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on
-
the photo in the Hunt auctions is no doubt authentic. my opinion on the other has not changed.
-
-
I want to add that the signature does have some characteristics that appear in authentic versions, but the killer for me is the M, and how the last name just fades into nothing.
Compare the middle descender (after the first hump of the M) to known authentic versions.
-
Permalink Reply by LymanBostock Fan on
-
To me The M's in Munson are nearly identical, other than the uneven imbalance at the top. I admit its weird, but until I uncovered this Hunt Auction Munson, I had never in my almost 40 years of studying Munson autographs seen the M start like this either.
Regarding the lack of formed letters in the "unson", yes, I agree with you that it fades into nothing, unlike the Hunt example. It looks much more like this authentic example on a 1974 baseball.
Note, that when I first posted this example 2 years ago, I reasoned that this example was right in that 1973-1975 time frame when Munson's autograph was changing. I still stand firmly with this, jiving with this 1974 ball.
-
-
you can certainly take pieces of this signature question which, in my personal opinion, just looks off in general, and compare it to pieces of several authentic Munson signatures, as you have in this photo of the ball, which I agree is authentic. But my concern with the signature is that there are too many things about it that are questionable, whereas in authentic versions, there might be one or two atypical characteristics, but enough positives to make an accurate determination. I am just not seeing that here. but as the owner of the signature, if you are happy with it, that is all that really matters. I will say that I looked at a large number of authentic Munson's in the past few days, and only saw one example where the middle part of the M even approached the one in your example. that is what concerns me the most.
-
-
The problem I have is it is something I wish to sell. I never had any real intention of keeping it, as I have other Munson autographs, including some obtained in person, which obviously have much more sentimental value. Also, I've never liked the quality of the photo with the tape and all. Obviously, my goal would be to get PSA/DNA or JSA to pass off on it and I'd make a nice little profit, as I paid very little for it. To date, I've been unsuccessful. It may just be one of those autographs, where even though it is possibly authentic, nobody will sign off on it, due to its atypicalness. (Note: I believe it is atypical, but still believe it is real.) Like all of us, I have atypical graphs of others, obtained in person, which would never pass any authentication company. For most, its not that big a deal since the value of the autograph is fairly small. In this case, we're talking a big difference in value.
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on
-
On your example, is the bottom part of the T on top of or under the edge of the tape?
-
-
Steve,
We actually discussed this 2 years ago and it turns out the autograph is just to the left of the tape, and hence no meaningful conclusion could be drawn from it! I know, as weird as it sounds, it would have been nice had this not been the case to give further evidence of authentic or not!
-
-
Right. While it wouldn't "prove" anything, if the signature was on top of the tape, it would weigh against it heavily IMO.
There is a little dark dot just above the bottom on the downstroke... are you sure that's not a tiny tag of tape crossing into the ink?
-
-
Steve,
I pulled out my photo and examined it closely. You are correct, there is a tiny zag of tape that is either on top or below the T. Unfortunately, I still have not been able to tell if it is above or below the tape.
-
Permalink Reply by Richard Hirsh on
-
Sadly a bad signature. The M in yours is attached and the M in the real one is free standing. You can also see some thought put into the way your piece was signed with the slight hesitations and the good one flows.
-
-
Richard,
The M being attached or not is not meaningful. In his early signatures, the M was always attached to the "unson", while in later years (1976 and after) it was detached. This transition occurred in the 1973-1975 region and I believe this is when this photo was signed. There is just no way one day he woke up and decided "I'll detach the signature". Surely, there was a transition region, where some were attached and some weren't, and this (assuming real, which I still believe) would have occurred then.
Regarding hesitation areas, I see only one possible hesitation area - in the M. I believe it was likely he started signing, got semi-interrupted and continued it. It would also explain the awkwardness of the two humps of the M not having nearly identical heights. Do you see other hesitation areas? If so, please explain where, because I do not see them.
-
-
What I find most interesting about this discussion is that when I first posted this example 2 years ago, I got people claiming it was fake because blue sharpie hadn't been invented yet (it was available at least as early as 1976 with 100% certainty, probably even 1974-1975), that it was too sharp (I have IP signed photos from 1977-1978 signed in blue sharpie that are just as sharp as this one) and that the sharpie would have faded over 40+ years, etc. Proper storage out of sunlight can keep a signature like this deep and sharp for at least 40 years, probably longer.) At least, I have debunked several of these myths.
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
