Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Null on February 18, 2014 at 5:52pm

I'm just now seeing this thread because the news feed on this site has been messed up since Friday. This pack-pulled one is absolutely no question authentic IMO, it has every thing I look for in a Mantle sig, and as Terrier noted I feel The Mick would have most definitely stayed within his "area" of the card.

The card in question in the OP is a different story. Speaking on the Mantle only, (I can't see the Musial with this hideous pen, and I know NOTHING about Yaz), my initial reaction was I didn't like it. Specifically, I don't like the "c", it looks more like an "I" BUT there are authentic versions where this is the case (I own one), I also didn't like the abnormally high "k". It's hard to see but I don't like the "an" relationship, I also don't like the baseline on the "tle"... NOW, there are some things I like which is what makes this a tough call. I would vote "Not Authentic" to be conservative, but this is a tough one which is why this site is awesome because it gives us a place to discuss. I really feel The Mick would've stayed within his "lines", that along with the concerns I previously shared would make me side with caution. I have 1000% confidence in Terrier's "Yaz eye", his disapproval of the Yaz would be the icing on the cake. As always, just my opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on February 18, 2014 at 6:23pm

While I agree Mantle normally would try to sign in his area, there are multiple examples of the pack pulled triple autograph in which he signed outside his space. They can easily be found on Ebay so i don't think that in and of itself is much of a tell.

If you go to the PSA site and put the cert # in and zoom the picture, it is much clearer on all 3 autographs.

While I guess it makes sense if any one is bad that all are bad, the only real issue I have with the Mantle is the "c" and I have seen unquestionable authentic Mantles with this "c." I never see "M"'s this good on forgeries.

Guess that is the reason we all have opinions and that's OK.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on February 18, 2014 at 6:27pm

its interesting how we all have different things that we look at. with the Mantle, the K does stand out to me, but the other thing that I thought looked funny is the "tle".  Something about the relative slant, the height of the t, I just don't know but I thought it looked off.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Null on February 18, 2014 at 6:32pm

True, this one is no question real deal and he slightly goes outside the lines:

Item # 390663522888

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on February 18, 2014 at 6:43pm

Item #321308293769 he goes way outside his space.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Null on February 18, 2014 at 6:51pm

Yup and that one is NO QUESTION real deal as well...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Null on February 18, 2014 at 6:55pm

On cards, due to lack of space I assume, Mick made his M's more "vertical" than they are on flats/balls. Hard to explain, if I was at my computer I could provide examples. The one in the OP doesn't exhibit this characteristic, whereas the 2 we just mentioned do...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sean C. on February 18, 2014 at 4:02pm

I'm honestly not here to argue...I just like seeing others opinions.  :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on February 18, 2014 at 4:17pm

Sean, this one is a tough one because of the Yaz forgery.  I respect Randy's opinion on Mantle, but if he didn't chime in here, I would be questioning the Mantle also.  I just do not consider myself as well versed in Mantle as some of the others here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on February 18, 2014 at 4:28pm

It is tough because Terrier is the most knowledgeable on Yaz here and if he says it is bad then I have to trust him and even with my little knowledge of Yaz it doesn't look right.

I have one obtained through Dick Gordon a couple of years ago and this one is vastly different.

I'm confident in the Mantle being authentic but certainly could be wrong. 

Doesn't make much sense to have a legitimate Mantle with a bad Yaz so maybe my eyes are off today.

I'm sure others will chime in on the Mantle. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on February 18, 2014 at 4:39pm

We are spending so much time discussing the mantle and yaz that we are neglecting the Musial. Compare it to the authentic card that Sean posted. The Musial is likely bad too.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on February 18, 2014 at 4:47pm

Maybe whoever did the signing of the 500 pieces figured if they got Mantle to authentically sign the card, they could forge Yaz and Musial and no one would notice. LOL

Or of course, all 3 could be bad but if that Mantle is bad it is the best forgery I have ever seen. The forgers never get the "M"s quite right and these look dead perfect to me from this era especially when signing with this type pen.

If you zoom the picture on the PSA/DNA site, the autographs are much clearer and I still like the Mantle a lot although there looked to be a slight pen slip on the second "M" but it still looks legit.

I don't know Musial that well either so my only worthwhile opinion is on the Mantle.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page