Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Fuddjcal on January 18, 2019 at 9:07am

It does look a little slowly drawn and may even be one of those fancy new "printed autograph balls"? I don't like the dark pen skipping the entire autograph for starters????????That's fishy.

The "Mantle" doesn't look like it was signed with the usual authority either. Slow flick "M", little rounded "a" and the "ntle" just look off, IMHO.

If it's a forgery that is meant to fool and not a tchotchke, it's a nice one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Spillane on January 18, 2019 at 9:28am

Fudd, this is great stuff. Thank you.Very enlightening. When I first saw the autograph myself, I did a double take. I didn't think forgery. I did think it was slowly signed.

If it's a forgery, it's a good one. When I was learning the mantle, all the forgeries I saw were so blatantly obvious. But this one? Wow.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve on January 18, 2019 at 11:01am

I completely agree with Fudd.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on January 18, 2019 at 11:50am

I can understand why beckett failed this

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CJCollector on January 18, 2019 at 1:16pm

This is why sometimes an in-person examination of an autograph is absolutely necessary.

Click on the below image to get a closer view.  I magnified it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on January 18, 2019 at 1:35pm

Beckett made the right call.

• ▶ Reply