We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.

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 Steve Cyrkin, Admin on December 24, 2017 at 5:43pm

Chris,

This is a new area for Matt, and he’s using the tools and processes he knows.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on December 24, 2017 at 6:04pm

Not authentic. This baseball has many problems.

The spacing is stretched out, proportion between the letters is way off, and it has a drawn appearance. Also, the little flick coming up from the second M is not natural… it looks manufactured.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Cordoves on December 24, 2017 at 6:05pm

Thanks for your input Steve!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Cordoves on December 25, 2017 at 4:30am

Good Morning and Merry Christmas Steve! I've enhanced the photo of the Mantle, and compared to two other authenticated examples. I must say, I fail to see the spacing issue you are seeing. Also, you will notice that little flick in the exemplars provided. I want to draw your attention particularly to the A, and the unusual flat side to the bottom left of the letter. This cannot be replicated without a natural flow, and if replicated, would have more of a rigid line with applied pressure.

Attachments: No photo uploads here

2017-12-25_06.24.42.jpg, 89 KB

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Cordoves on December 25, 2017 at 4:51am

I will also add this. If this was forged, it is one of the best if not the best I have ever seen for Mantle. I am far from a professional, but this is a tough one.

This shows the distance between lettering while enhanced, as well as unique markers such as the flattening on the side of the A, and the apex in the N. The looping in the T from the middle photo to the bottom, is identical.

By the way, thank you all for your input! This has been fun!

Attachments: No photo uploads here

MantleEnhanced.jpg, 169 KB

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Cordoves on December 25, 2017 at 5:04am

While not common, Mantle did vary on his N. Earlier examples such as these from PSA, demonstrate that elongated N. Not so common, but is found in authentic examples.

Attachments: No photo uploads here

Authentic-Mickey-Mantle-Rookie-Era-Signature.jpg, 42 KB

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CJCollector on December 25, 2017 at 5:57am

Very obvious forgery.

Those examples you posted, Matt, are from the 1950's.

Whoever penned the OP's "Mantle" wasn't trying to emulate his vintage autograph.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on December 25, 2017 at 4:51am

In the questioned example, there’s a huge space between the M and the A that is not present in the other examples. Also the N looks like a stretched out U... you don’t see that in the authentic examples.

The uptick on the M in the authentic examples looks natural. The uptick in the question example looks like it may have been drawn on. It does not look like a natural movement in my opinion.

The cross stroke of the T and the relative height of the L.... very different in the question example.

Lastly, my first gut reaction when looking at the signature was, “fake.” Hard to explain, but whole thing just looks “off.” Over the years, I’ve learned to trust that first reaction.

Of course there are some subtle similarities, that’s what forgeries do... try to replicate the look as closely as possible. You may be able to dig through exemplars and find authentic examples with some of these traits. But then you’re getting into the business of excusing an accumulation of atypical traits on a single example.

I maintain my opinion it is not authentic. :-)

Merry Christmas!