After reading the posts on here I would like to offer my opinion based on the fact that I am probably one of a few Net 54 members, as well as one of a few collectors to actually own an authentic Joe Jackson signed item. I own his 1948 signed South Carolina driver's license. Before buying that item in 1998 at Sotheby's I researched his signature and since then have researched it as much as I can. Buying a Joe Jackson signed legal document is one thing but buying a baseball is another since there are so few available , and many are forgeries. It is well known that Joe had a hard time signing his name, especially if his wife Katherine was not around because she would hold a card with his name written on it for him to copy as he wrote. If she was not around he would have to do it from memory which was very hard and embarrassing for him. The JOE was the easy part because it was 3 " loopy " letters. The JACKSON became trickier because it was longer with different style of letter formations. When he signed he would have inconsistent signature breaks in Jackson based on if he had his card guide or doing it from memory. That being the case his signatures are usually long and drawn out....look at how he uses space on the flat legal documents. Therefore I decided if I were to buy a Joe Jackson ball it would have to be signed on the sweet spot to allow for the length of his writing needs. I have never bought a ball at this point figuring 1 Joe Jackson signature is pretty fortunate to own. Now with this ball my only concern is that the Joe is the easiest part to forge, the Jackson is trickier. My point of reference is the "s" in Jackson. I have never seen a closed "s" in Jackson, and this ball has one. Also the "ck" transition in Jackson is different to me as well from what I normally see.
As I am no expert just a collector with an opinion I would only consider this ball if I could see it up really close to look for other markers that I use for his signatures. Otherwise I would be doubtful...again I did not say forgery just doubtful.
Sorry to be so verbose on this topic .
|