Foxx, Mack, Klem
 

My last inquiries from you folks in awhile. Thanks in advance for your opinions. Been in my collection for 15 years or more
Attachment 349720

Attachment 349721

My guess is that every single one of of these items you've been posting were rejected by PSA (with one or two being rendered inconclusive). If so, they're doing a great job.

Don't think these are authentic.

Foxx and Mack are :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

, Mack had GAI when Gutierrez was in charge, Foxx has an old PSA when it was in a lot of 6- 15 years ago and all the others were definitely good. Klem had either Albersheim or something like that. I didn't keep those type of things when I got them 15 years ago but that is what I remember and the Mack was GAI slabbed. I thought about sending them in to PSA but if they don't pass you guys why waste the $ (you could argue why waste the $ either way). Just trying to reorganize and make some sense of my collection and putting the ones I am not sure of (some older purchases before I knew very much) aside for more expert opinions. MY goal is to know "for sure" if I have any fakes lurking in my collection as I know a few of my old Mastro purchases looked bad on closer inspection

I would be shocked if Rich said that Klem was good. It looks like the paper is barely 10 years old and the ink looks wet. I agree they all look off on quick glance. Gutierrez is a clown so it wouldn’t surprise me if he gave his approval.

I had the same gut instinct with these and a lot of the items you have posted lately. I am by no means an “expert”, but I don’t think these would pass JSA or PSA. Especially now with the signed card debacle fresh in everyone’s mind. You have to also understand that PSA / JSA would be examining the item in hand and not from a photo on the Internet

Foxx Doesn't Look That Bad
 

I don't think the Foxx looks that bad. I have wanted to buy a Foxx signature for more than 5 years now, and I have noticed that his signature has a couple variations that all get certified authentic. The "F" is a little different than what is regular, but it's not THAT far off; the rest of it looks okay to me. Especially if you compare the "Jimmie" in your example to this one on eBay, which is PSA/DNA certified. That handwriting looks identical to me. This same example is also missing the swoop through his "F" that many of his signatures have. My wife is a signature checker for elections, and she has been taught that you don't look for what is missing, you look for what is present. And what is present doesn't look that bad. IMO, it might be worth it to send it in.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Jimmie-Foxx...AAAOSw0d9bSRFF

I agree with you on Foxx. It was in a lot of 6 bought maybe 15 years ago all taped to a scrapbook all in fountain pen: Simmons, Grove, Hornsby, Bottomley, Ott. They are all perfect and I find it hard to imagine a fake Foxx thrown in unless it was clubhouse. And I have seen similar Jimmies but the F in Foxx made me wonder.

E96 Connie Mack
 

I have always liked the Mack. Not sure why it was removed from a GAI holder without being put into a subsequent holder. But, here are my photos from a prior owner when he had it slabbed by GAI.

too funny. :D Those are horrible PERIOD, IMHO.

This would have been a red flag for me too. Why only top shelf players and all difficult. I get the fact that they would have been popular, but so were some of the guys that lived a very full life and are not tough autos.

I also understand what you are saying about formation, but the appearance just looks labored and thicker ink for an earlier Foxx. Just doesn’t look right.

I thank all of you folks for your input. I have been good friends with Jim Stinson for many years but with Jim not available to help me out, your expert opinions are much appreciated.