1962 Topps Mickey Mantle

[Econteachert205]

My interpretation from the card is that it was authentic and simply signed under less than perfect conditions with a less than perfect pen resulting in the issues discussed.

[icollectDCsports]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

My interpretation from the card is that it was authentic and simply signed under less than perfect conditions with a less than perfect pen resulting in the issues discussed.

Great discussion. I've enjoyed reading the various opinions about this autograph and this is how I look at it.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

My interpretation from the card is that it was authentic and simply signed under less than perfect conditions with a less than perfect pen resulting in the issues discussed.

I agree. I don't know how someone could have traced it so effortlessly and if it was an autopen then I am sure we would have seen many more autopen signatures in the hobby.

[shelly]

Like I said from the start. I like this piece and would still buy it. I brought up other Idea's because I do respect Chris;s opinion. That being said it is time for Chris to tell us why he believes it is a forgery. and not just say its a forgery and nothing more.I think Econ explained it as well as anyone.
Now one last thing. Mantles N is the key. It is perfect an autopen can not be that smooth it would have left a little more of corner on that n also the loop to the n is perfect. Like I said before I have never seen this signature which makes me really believe that it is not an autopen.