Mantle signature - 1953

[ATP]

I don't specifically recall seeing one like that before, but I have a couple from 1954-1956 and they were morphing a lot during that time. I think one of mine even looks like he missed a letter it was signed so quickly. This one does look to have some sloppy speed to it.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by ATP

I don't specifically recall seeing one like that before, but I have a couple from 1954-1956 and they were morphing a lot during that time. I think one of mine even looks like he missed a letter it was signed so quickly. This one does look to have some sloppy speed to it.

A while back someone posted a Gehrig that I thought looked horrible, but David A educated me that it was just a hurried signature. I was wondering if this was something similar. I've been studying early to mid-50's Mantles for a while now, and while I've seen some that were worse than others, nothing like this.

I asked the question because it was an item I was interested in bidding on if authentic, but at this point I have decided to leave it alone.

[Lordstan]

Scott,
Part of the reason I didn't reply is that I can't clearly make out where the "Mickey" starts. Is part of the "M" cut off?
Mark

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Scott,
Part of the reason I didn't reply is that I can't clearly make out where the "Mickey" starts. Is part of the "M" cut off?
Mark

That's the entire signature.

[shelly]

Scott, Iconic auctions has a 51 or 53 autograph.That looks nothing like this. Rushed or not it just does not look like he signed it.