Mantle and Dimaggio... Survey says!

[jimjim]

What do you guys think about this one? I am always suspect to a combo item, but the seller has a solid story. Thanks for the feedback. Always appreciated.

[ss]

Looks good

[shelly]

The autograph is perfect. Now is the photo real? The photo is at least second maybe third.

[jimjim]

Originally Posted by shelly

The autograph is perfect. Now is the photo real?

Not sure what you mean about the photo being real?

[shelly]

I should have said. When you would get an autograph from the players it would be from a negative. This picture has been reproduced from a photo over and over again. I can tell you if a ball has been signed. I can only tell you on a photo that the autograph is real not. What you are buying is a photo. Not anyone can tell you if that is authentic.

[jimjim]

OK. I got it.

It was signed over 20 years ago, so weren't there all sorts of poor quality photos floating around back then? I have the famous Mantle, Dimaggio, Williams photo that I got signed in-person myself, and it looks like it was printed on newsprint. Well, not that bad, but it is not close to photofile quality...

[shelly]

I still would not have purchased that piece only because of the photo. If it is in a frame I would look to see if it is really signed or just a picture of a picture. Honestly if you wanted something signed by Dimaggio and Mantle would you have it autographed on that? I really would not buy it.
Issac, what is your opinion?

[isaac2004]

Originally Posted by shelly

I still would not have purchased that piece only because of the photo. If it is in a frame I would look to see if it is really signed or just a picture of a picture. Honestly if you wanted something signed by Dimaggio and Mantle would you have it autographed on that? I really would not buy it.
Issac, what is your opinion?

It looks like a newspaper photo in my opinion. I would be interested in dematting it to see what kind of paper it is on.

[shelly]

Originally Posted by isaac2004

It looks like a newspaper photo in my opinion. I would be interested in dematting it to see what kind of paper it is on.

How can two autographs be so perfect on a newspaper. No feathering not a smudge and why would the photo be a second or third print? If it was from the a newspaper printed in the fifty's it would be worth as much as there autographs. I would also remind you that Joe did sign anything with Mickey on it until the early 90's. So when do you think this was signed?
Please reply to the very important question. Would you buy it?

[packs]

That photo is really strange. Both of their heads are elongated and stretched out. Really weird image.

[ATP]

It's just the camera angle that is distorting the heads. I think it is likely just a lower quality photo in general, but the autographs look ok.

[shelly]

No question about the autographs. Is the item authentic. Would you buy it. It is not a newspaper it is a third generation photo. The autographs are photographed. Would you buy it as an authentic piece? That is what I think is fact. Trust me I have been wrong many, many times on this one I think I am correct. If I am wrong you have my apologies ahead of time.

[ATP]

Very possible that it could be a reproduction of an actual signed photo. The autographs "look" authentic, but you are right, it would need to be viewed in person or even a really good quality scan would show if there is overlaps in the ink, pressure, etc...and that would be the deciding factor. One of the dangers to authenticating not in person, laser copies and the like can sneak by. Here is an example to illustrate the point that I think Shelly is trying to make. Several years back, I bought this Hopalong Cassidy signed photo, without looking very closely and based off of a very poor quality photo that the seller took with their cell phone. Upon receipt of the item, it is very easy to see that the inscription and autograph are "in" the photo, not "on" it. It was reproduced from an original signed photo. The "grey" tone of the ink also gives it away to some degree, but the fact that it was inscribed had fooled the original owner for decades and probably would many buyers.

[isaac2004]

Originally Posted by shelly

How can two autographs be so perfect on a newspaper. No feathering not a smudge and why would the photo be a second or third print? If it was from the a newspaper printed in the fifty's it would be worth as much as there autographs. I would also remind you that Joe did sign anything with Mickey on it until the early 90's. So when do you think this was signed?
Please reply to the very important question. Would you buy it?

I wouldnt buy it, unless i held it in my hand and could see if the marker is raised from the paper, with this, i dont think it is the case

[jimjim]

The guy lives not too far from me, so I will go check it out in person. I'll let you guys know. Thanks for all the insightful feedback!

[jimjim]

Just to give you guys an update. I met with the seller and everything checked out. The picture looks much better in person. I think it looked so grainy b/c he sent me pictures via his iPhone. The autos look like they are on the paper, as I can clearly see the ink spots etc. It doesn't look like a copy. So I went ahead and purchased it.

The only think I am bummed about (and I am being picky) is that the picture was attached to some poster/mat board and can't be removed.

Here are some pics:

[shelly]

Is it a photo or newspaper?

[jimjim]

It is a photo.

[shelly]

You made sure you can see the raised ink? If so nice photo.

[ATP]

Looks great you can definitely see the ink strokes on top of the image with the close up photos. Nice pickup!