We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.

Thurman Munson signed photo revisited

So, almost 2 years ago I posted a picture of a signed Thurman Munson photo which I obtained online, which I strongly felt and still feel is authentic and inquired about additional opinions on. Upon first posting, some members of this forum literally mocked me for believing it is real. By the end of the forum I had at least stimulated interesting conversation about whether it was authentic or not.

Today, I was perusing Hunt Auctions and came across another Thurman Munson signed photo, which arguably looks quite similar to the example I posted. It is lot #372 of their November 11, 2016 auction and the signed photo is included here. This Hunt Auctions signed photo includes a COA from JSA.

What is most interesting is it is the same photo, also signed in blue sharpie, although the Hunt Auctions piece shows some fading, probably due to exposure to sunlight, where the one I obtained may have been stored in a more safe environment. One of the biggest problems many members had with my signed photo was the M in Munson. The M in the Hunt Auction photo is nearly identical in formation to mine. The Thurman part of the Hunt's Munson signature also is nearly identical in formation to mine. In my opinion, they were both likely signed at the same time, at a give-away event of sorts in the mid 1970's.

Now revisiting my item (bottom) and the one in the Hunt Auctions (top), I'm curious as to what others think. Do you still believe my photo is not authentic? What about the Hunt Auctions signed photo? Authentic or not? Opinions. Comments?Hunt Auction #372 November 2016 signed Thurman Munson photo.

My Thurman Munson signed photo

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on October 27, 2016 at 7:15am

People make the mistake of thinking that every blue signature is a "Sharpie." Felt tip pens were around before the 70s. In many cases, they do lighten over time and black now looks more gray and blue looks lighter. However, once in a while you run across a felt tip from the 60s that is undoubtedly authentic and still quite dark and bold. Probably the result of optimal storage conditions and maybe the pen was brand new and delivered a heavy flow when it was signed.

Also, scanning settings can make a huge difference. If the contrast is pumped, ink may look much darker and solid than it really is.

In any case, it's a mistake to think any dark bold signature MUST be a Sharpie.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Hirsh on October 27, 2016 at 8:37am

Felt tip pens started to be used around 1960. Sharpies came out later but look very simular to felt tips.
The hesitation mostly in the M. I also don't like the way his last name finishes.
Bottom line is that this is not an exact science and you don't have to believe our opinion. If you ever part with it the issue will fall on the buyer and their thoughts.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LymanBostock Fan on October 27, 2016 at 7:37pm

I should just point out that this signature is dark blue. Its not that I tweaked any scanner settings.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LymanBostock Fan on October 27, 2016 at 7:40pm

On a different note, whats your opinion of this "PSA slabbed" 1975 SSPC Munson signed card that Quality Autographs, Kevin Keating's company has for sale for $1995?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Hirsh on October 27, 2016 at 7:55pm

I don't like it. It seems like the u is way to big and the signature seems to sloppy. It might be a rush signature but I think Thurman Munson had more pride in his handwriting than that.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by greta garbo on November 8, 2016 at 10:48am

Thurman often signed his last name in a rushed fashion, appearing as Munn instead of Munson so I wouldn't be at all concerned about that. Someone forging his autograph would be much more likely to try to duplicate his full name signatures.

For proof that he did, indeed, often sign "Munn", check out his signature on some "non-autograph" documents like some of the contracts he signed shown in the attached photos. I suspect that when he appeared at signing events, his autograph was neater and his name was spelled out completely early on during the event but as he signed more and more photos, his signature grew sloppier and less complete.

Attachments: No photo uploads here