Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by CEE GEE on March 2, 2012 at 10:55am

I hope some one could shed some light on this as well...this is tuff indeed 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on March 2, 2012 at 2:21pm

it is impossible to make a solid determination on this. what kind of ball is it on?  if its real, and that is highly questionable, it would have to be one of his early to mid fifties signatures.  I can't see much, but from I can see, there are some things that bother me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Jackson on March 2, 2012 at 5:44pm

Thats the weird thing.  This is on a pre-1976 american league ball with 1950's reunion signatures.  That what puzzles me is wondering if he was trying himself to replicate his 1950's signature? and if so why? was he asked to try?  Or was this someone that use to sign his clubhouse signatures doing what they remembered?  lots of questions on this.  While obviously I would love this to be real being such a huge Mantle fan, as a true collector, I also want to know the truth.  Thanks everyone for taking the time to look and comment.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mikey33 on March 2, 2012 at 2:46pm

Really faded, hard to tell

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by SHALE LEVINE on April 8, 2012 at 7:15am

Though your autograph is hard to read it appears to me to be from around 1953-1954 which is what Mantles autograph looked like back then.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on April 8, 2012 at 1:10pm

I've adjusted the image to make the Mickey Mantle signature more visible. Hopefully this helps:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Jackson on April 8, 2012 at 2:41pm

Thank you. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on April 8, 2012 at 4:00pm

Page 74 of Team Baseballs by James Spence, Jr. and John Mitnick features a side-by-side comparison of real vs clubhouse Mantle signatures from 1951 through 1968.

From what I can see here, the signature style is closest to examples from 1955 - 1957. 

The angle of the loop on the first M seems to be closer to the authentic version. However, due to the lack of fine detail, I cannot compare other points to form a more definitive opinion. Seeing the "key" and the second M would be very helpful.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Jackson on April 8, 2012 at 7:22pm

sadly those two parts are the worst faded.  This signature really is driving me nuts. It has parts in the key areas CEE GEE has taught me to look at that look like a good mantle signature. like the way the "n" is formed and goes into the "t" and also the "a" formation.  For me the "mickey" part of the signature is too hard for me to determine, so I'm just basing my opinion on the last name. Of coarse I have no expertise in this. I'd love for it to be real, but if its not I wanna be able to know for sure and have another signer use that space. But if I get it covered then find out it was real, I would get sick.

I may try to see if I can find a local photographer to take clearer images of the signature for me to post.  My camera and photo skills suck. 

Also on some SEVERELY faded Babe Ruth signature letters of authenticity from JSA it looks like they use a black light or something to bring out the signature.  Is anyone familiar with that process? maybe I could use it here to bring out the entire signature in a picture.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve on April 8, 2012 at 6:38pm

This resembles his signature from when he was much younger, probably when he was in his twenties.

• ▶ Reply