This is an interesting one one and not what we are used to seeing as much with The Mick, which is probably the reason why not a lot of responses. I think the age looks right for being vintage signed, and there are a couple distinct traits to the signature that I am going to say it's authentic if I had to go one way or another. I don't think it is a forgery and I see a couple things in the inscription that are common to his other writing, but it looks a little shaky at parts (then again, it is a really long inscription and writing on a baseball is never easy).
|