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

Thurman Munson Maybe? Real??

I came across this and wanted some opinions. Especially, Terrier's

I thinks it's alright, but wanted to be sure.

Thanks, John.

s-l225-1.jpg

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Spillane on March 17, 2018 at 11:42am

Here's another photo

Thurman-Munson-1976.jpg

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on March 17, 2018 at 12:05pm

I've seen that signature, it is authentic

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on March 17, 2018 at 1:25pm

not authentic in my opinion

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Spillane on March 17, 2018 at 6:11pm

Thank you so much.That's crazy. They bought three Munsons together. One real! One forgery! And here's the deal breaker.

FB_IMG_1521334472805.jpg

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Woody2Shoes on March 18, 2018 at 12:08am

I don't really like any of them.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on March 18, 2018 at 5:41am

the ball in my opinion, is likely authentic, as is the first item.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Spillane on March 18, 2018 at 9:30am

Thank you so much for your input!!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Woody2Shoes on March 18, 2018 at 5:39pm

And of all of them, I like the ball the least. It looks like it was signed by someone not familiar with signing their name on a baseball, the placement is awkward, off to the left, and not typical of Munson for any period. The entire track to me looks off. I'd run, not walk from that one, go figure. we're usually on the same page with Munson, even in agreement as to the range of years signed in!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on March 18, 2018 at 6:12pm

that's fine. The one in the middle is an obvious forgery. What you are missing is that forgers screw up the Thurman more than anything. The shape of the Th is always off. In these two examples, they are spot on. Shape, size, everything. The M in Munson on the ball is a little atypical, but the connection between the M and u is not that uncommon, especially in the mid-70s. I respect your opinion, but it doesn't change mine.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Woody2Shoes on March 18, 2018 at 6:21pm

I'm not trying to change your opinion. We're seeing different things. IMO, the Th on the ball is more indicative of his 2nd signature variation (ca. 1972/3) and not the 4th (ca. 1975/1976). The small letters are interconnected in a way contrary to the formation of that Th on the ball. I would expect a vastly different urman to follow that style of Th, and I'm not even getting as far as the Munson, there's enough in that first name alone to give me pause, especially for 1975. Just my 2 cents.