We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.

Mantle Difficulty

I've been a collector nearly 30 years. As a Police Officer, I incorporated my hobby in to my work, and studied Forensic Handwriting Analysis. I came across this Mantle, and it caught my eye. I noticed several key similarities, and only a few irregularities at glance. Upon comparison, and under magnification, I see no irregularities in the flow. I find no irregular impression points. Nor, do I see any dragging in the flow of the pen. I've had several Mantle collectors say it is a fake.

Needing more insight, I hired Richard Simon to offer his opinion. As well respected as Richard is on Yankee items, I trust his opinion. He deemed it good. A friend who works at the FBI Crime Lab with Forensic Handwriting, also viewed the signature, and agreed it is good.

That said, there should be little question as to the findings. Thoughts?

I will post photos of the ball, and my comparison exemplars from various years.

0 members like this

Attachments: No photo uploads here

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on December 24, 2017 at 1:17pm

Matt, we also have a very high regard for Richard Simon's opinion. Who told you the Mantle was fake? Did you post it somewhere?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Cordoves on December 24, 2017 at 1:20pm

I just joined this site. I belong to several Facebook groups, such as Autograph Universe. Of course, most are self proclaimed experts that have no idea how to operate a ProScope. It did raise a slight bit of concern, however, Richard is highly respected and a foremost expert in Yankee signatures.

Now the twist of why I am so intrigued by this ball I purchased. It is on a Budig ball, which makes it more of a rarity.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Cordoves on December 24, 2017 at 1:25pm

Thank you. You obviously understand my concerns for opinions. My own conclusion, is that the signature is authentic. It exemplifies several well known traits, too difficult to forge. Thoughts?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on December 24, 2017 at 1:48pm

Hi Matt,

Welcome! Glad you joined us.

Something you might find interesting is that most forensic document examiners that authenticate in this business, I mean by offering authentication to dealers on autographs for resale, and then issuing COAs or LOAs (letters of authentication), have a reputation of authenticating forgeries as genuine.

Have you seen that?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Cordoves on December 24, 2017 at 1:54pm

To be honest, I have not personally. When I hired Richard, it was not questioned as to my disposition of the ball. Frankly, it is for investment purposes only, and will be stored in my personal collection.

Living in Missouri, I do not personally know any other forensic examiners. Prosecutors needing an expert witness, often have to hire outside of Missouri.

With PSA, JSA, Beckett, among the most popular choices, I would think the other experts are being used less.

What I like most about Richard, is the fact he has the credentials, and is willing to testify in court as to his opinion, and how he reached his opinion. That means as great deal to me in my line of work.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on December 24, 2017 at 2:22pm

Richard is a GREAT guy to use. I wasn't implying anything about you, BTW. I just wanted to mention it in case you come across some FDE COAs.

Last I heard, neither PSA, JSA, Beckett nor their employees offer expert witness work, so legitimate experts like Richard are hard to come by.

You mentioned ProScope, which is a great tool...and not used often enough! Autograph authentication can often be a bit different than typical legal authentication. Because collectors, dealers and authenticators often see hundreds or thousands of a popular subject's autographs over the years, like Mantle, they can develop an "eye" for their authenticity.

In Mantle, for instance, perhaps 98% or more of the forgeries are either ones commonly seen or ones obviously fake to anyone who knows his autograph well. ProScopes are rarely needed for those.

You still want to see it in person and often use a ProScope to be sure it's genuine, because you need to make sure it's not a copy or signed on, say, paper that didn't exist when they were signing—lots of fake Mantles are printed in inkjet photo paper that came out after he died. But only a small fraction of fakes remain to be caught at that point.

So the process is often different than the reputable FDE's process, where the expert may have never seen the subjects autograph before, let alone studied it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Cordoves on December 24, 2017 at 2:38pm

I concur. I only work with vintage autographs and use exemplars in person, through books, and reputable online resources.

As you stated, many of us who have handled or viewed hundreds or thousands of authentic specimens, are keen to the various habits of the signer. I would contend that most untrained people look only for the irregularities, instead of a full examination to determine similarities. That said, I believe several good graphs have been passed over.

We also seem to forget other factors that change a person's handwriting, such as age, health conditions, substance usage, medications, etc..

This Mantle ball caught my eye by the similarities. While I noticed an irregularity, I observed several more similarities that could only be forged by the most skilled forger. Thus, why I asked Richard.

The ProScope is a wonderful tool that I stand by, if used correctly.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on December 24, 2017 at 2:42pm

I hope you become a regular here, Matt. You have a lot of experience and knowledge about authenticating to share.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Cordoves on December 24, 2017 at 2:45pm

Thank you. I will do my best, and offer my opinions only. I absolutely love the art of signature review, and study. If you need to reach me quicker, you can find me on FB under my name.

BTW, what were your thoughts on the ball I posted? Odd specimen?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on December 24, 2017 at 3:01pm

Thanks, glad to hear it and how to find you on FB.

The first Mantle image you posted concerned me. My eye was drawn to the second M, which looked especially wide due to the angle it was imaged at and the fineness of the pen.

”Mickey” looked great, though, and the other two photos looked right, so I was comfortable that it was good.

Even Terrier calling it real didn’t bother me. ;)