Seriously all I can say is ... those who know know... I can 100% vouched for this take by Jason and will go further and say Dan is probably one of the top 5-7 people on the planet that is an expert on Joe Jackson AND one of maybe 3-5 people who have the knowledge enough to render an opinion on this topic.


Again I will challenge anyone to go find a large Jackson signature which this one would be the largest.

People who are experts in Joe Jackson know and those who are also collectors and are aware of the nuances of signatures know even better and Dan is one of maybe 5 people on the planet that checks both those boxes...again if you know you know

Here are some helpful tips for you snowman:

-Putting museum in quotes there to suggest some kind of slight and illegitimacy only highlights your ignorance on this topic so do yourself a favor and stop.

-Yes Joe Jackson and hobby experts, who have no incentive behind rendering an opinion, who know the nuances of Jackson's signature and his history, actually would know better than TPA employees and would actually give an unbiased opinion on the authenticity of a signature than would a company with an preexisting and financially beneficial relationship with an auction house who is selling and gaining a profit (via fees garnished from the sale) and advertisement by selling a rare autograph. To argue otherwise is either ignorant or you are just trying to be flippant...you are beyond naïve if you think TPA companies know better than actually historians and experts on any given narrowed field of study.

-with that...actually NO it is not "irresponsible" of him to put out his opinion, it actually could be said it is more his duty to do so given that he's one of maybe 5 people on the planet that could give such an opinion.

-If you read the 2015 thread about this photo you would see some of the well respect experts express that this is a fake and it has been well known/generally accepted within the hoppy as a fake since then.

-If you also read that you would see that no it isn't clear that "two people" wrote on that photo.

To me, it seems like an obvious fake. The signature is way too nice to be Joe's but, more than that, the "Alexandria" gives it away. It's the same hand as the signature and no way Joe wrote that.

Add Jazz Chisholm of the Marlins. People pay crazy money too for his RC auto and there are noticeable differences throughout the brands in signature style.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great thread. Love this Forum and the experts it brings out.

For me, the most surprising part of the discussion is the fact the Joe Jackson Museum has $1.5 Million laying around to bid on artefacts.

The same PSA and JSA that passed scores, if not hundreds, of fake autographs on vintage cards? Think I'll believe the historians.

On Blowout there are images of quite comparable autographs on legal documents from 15 16 and 20. For example.

Yes, this. PSA is certainly not perfect. My opinion of their services went down dramatically when they authenticated an Eddie Sachs "signed" photo as authentic that is a well-known pre-printed handout. There are literally dozens of the exact same photo in the auto racing memorabilia world but they authenticated it as a legitimate autograph, which it absolutely is not.

There used to be a website that had the 100 most famous fakes that were certified. Can’t remember where.

Likely Hauls of Shame.

Ah. That guy. The article was pretty good regardless.

Yes H of S did an article on this Jackson photo as well as the Mathewson photo when they appeared at auction in 2015 . As I remember he tried to interview HA staff including Mike Gutierrez , who at the time was HA main sports expert . He got no response from them . I tried to find the H of S article but it’s nowhere to be found as best as I can tell.
No offense intended to anyone by mentioning H of S in my post .

I think the site is no more.

No, its still there at - haulsofshame.com

Doesn't look like it has been added to or updated in quite some time though.

I don't see a way to search it for past posts either. It was extensive at one point.

Doesn’t look like you can get to the old articles.

I can't even load old snapshots on Wayback. I give up.

I don't know what this website is, but apparently it has the Hauls site archived. Here is the 100 worst authentications article (without pictures):

WOW data overload.

Interesting Articles

Great stuff

Also worth noting is that the provenance of the photo, at least according to the story in the video someone linked to earlier, is not nothing.

I hate when people speak so authoritatively on these sorts of issues though, as if there's any way they could know with absolute certainty either way. Then they throw the weight of expertise at it by saying something like "The Joe Jackson Museum stated that this autograph is 100% fake." This, of course, is intended to give the reader the impression that some actual museum with a team of expert historians and conservators has examined the photograph and somehow deemed it to be fraudulent. This is deceptive though, as this is a "museum", not a museum. In actuality, it's a guy named Dan who bought a house that Joe Jackson lived in who put some memorabilia inside and let's the public tour it for free. A kind gesture for sure, and probably a great guy with an immense knowledge of Joe Jackson. It reminds me of all the creationists who would write books debating evolutionary biologists in the 80s and 90s. They would always put "Dr. So-and-so" as the author of the book. Then you'd look them up and their "doctorate" degree was always some degree in something like theology from a non-accredited university. Meanwhile, the evolutionary bioligsts they would debate had authored numerous college textbooks and none of them would say "Dr." on the spine, just their first and last names, despite the fact that they all held PhDs in relevant fields from places like Harvard and Stanford.

There is an implication of expertise when someone says a museum has rendered an opinion on some historical document. A guy named Dan who filed as a non-profit and let's people tour his home is a "museum", not a museum. Again, probably a great guy. But as a potential buyer of an important historical document, he's not someone whose advice I would be interested in seeking out.

Mr. Mike Nola of the Museum 9historian, board member) appears to have commented on this photo back at the time of the Heritage sale and did not raise (at least was not quoted as raising)any issue as to authenticity.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/...000-this-month

Different individual than the one now claiming fake, btw.

I took out links to the bogus Halls of Shit website. As O'[keefe once told me, 1/3 of it is true, 1/3 of it is not true and the other 1/3 of it he makes up. Having a few true things makes one think it's all true. Peter Nash is a criminal and should be in jail. No links to that trash. I know some of it is phony because he made up trash about me. So it's not really a debate.
.

I've apologized to Leon in a PM and do so here for posting the links. I meant only to help those above who were looking for the article. Once again, I'm sorry.

So I guess the bottom line is, when there are so few signatures of Joe, and none of them look exactly alike, and he was not really able to sign his name without practicing and/or copying an example his wife set out, unless there is rock-solid provenance, the best that can be said for a purported Joe Jackson autograph is that it's likely authentic (or not), and 100% certainty probably won't ever be determined.

I'm no autograph expert. In other areas (paintings, cards, photos), you probably can never be 100.000% certain something is real you can be 100% sure something is fake.

Those quotes from Ron Keurajian came from this story -- https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/t...G3MVBQL4JBXH4/

At $1.4 million, one could do expert ink analysis.

1. Every Jackson signature that is above question is on a document of some kind so yes there are many that are 100% authentic, they are all on documents.

2. As I said before all his real signatures are smaller than the average persons signature and this photo is very large

3. The photo itself has great providence...not the signature on it.

4. The Js on the photo are smooth and I have yet to find a JJ signed document where they are smoothly formed like these. Also very small/narrow top loops.

5. It seems very likely that the same hand wrote everything on that photo and Jackson 100% could not have done that.

6. He ended his signature almost always with a downward stroke and not an up stroke like on the photo

Jackson's real signatures are very consistent through out time and this photo is not consistent with them.

Im sure better experts can point out more issues but these are the ones I would point of.

Here are a few examples I threw together, these are not to scale as the 1911 photo is much larger than any of the others.
(also notice the change in Buck Weaver's signature from 1917 to 1920-21...his signature is a lot harder to judge if you ask me)
-1915 doc
-1911 photo
-1917 team signed document asking for WS bonus money
-1920-21 court document

He was like that movie where Raul Julia played both the cop and the drug dealer. I never got it.

Could you be more specific about why you think all the writing on the photo is in the same hand? To my completely untrained eye, I can see where the signature and the rest look a bit different.

Yeah, but that would really only help to prove it a fake if the ink was found to be something from after Jackson had passed away. Wouldn't prove he actually signed it, just that the ink may have been from when he was alive and could have signed it.

The writing on the photo dates it to 1911. I don't think anyone has suggested he himself signed it years later, or that that's even a possibility.

Wasn't sure if that is what David was referring to or not. But again, at best it could only confirm around when the writing occurred, and whether or not the signature and the rest of the writing were from the same ink/pen, and possibly the same or different times.

The point is no one does ink analysis on these autographs.

Ink analysis would determine if the ink's age is consistent with it being from 1911, and help identify a modern fake.

Normally it's time and cost-prohibitive, but this is a $1.4 million dollar autograph.

What is the process in doing an ink analysis? Does a tiny portion of the signature have to be marred in order to get a sample?

I get you. Makes sense, just won't prove who signed the signature though.

This is true. It is not handwriting analysis. But the age of the ink is no minor detail, and obviously can identify a later forgery.

There are two ways to date the ink 1) Chemical analysis which does not require any ink to be removed and 2) Judging the dryness of the ink, which requires and small bit to be removed.

Question about how the authentication business works? When the owner or AH sends an item like this to PSA, how much does PSA make if deemed authentic vs deemed not authentic or inconclusive? Is there significant financial incentive to authenticate positively?

There is not. PSA makes the same money if they deem it fake. The difference is they might lose customers down the line if they fail too many.

I've already pointed out some obvious autograph fakes that PSA authenticated, and I'm not really a hand-writing analyst or anything. The signatures were spelled wrong. I figure that's a solid giveaway.

You'd think, but it's not always a guarantee that the items in question aren't authentic. While in most cases your logic would prove accurate, there will always be exceptions to anything. A couple of examples come immediately to mind, among others:

--During his career, Claude Passeau would on rare occasion sign his surname "Passo". Same with Reggie Jackson ("Reggie Jax") and Nino Bongiovanni ("Nino
Bongy").

--Very early on, Willie Mays signed "William Mays" in spite of his birth name actually being Willie by all accounts.

--Satchel Paige initially spelled his nickname with two l's before updating it to a single l. There seemed to be a brief crossover period where both variations were employed.

--President Andrew Johnson misspelled his own surname "Johson" when signing his own marriage documentation.

--With infirmities of age, a person can occasionally slip up and miss a letter or two, as is evidenced by examples I've received over the years from older players. One good friend, signing what was likely his last autograph for me shortly before he died, actually signed a baseball "Geo." as opposed to his actual name of Joe. He was pushing 100 and unfortunately confused. He knew what he was writing was incorrect but was powerless to change it. This upset him greatly. I was on hand to witness this.

Here are the ones I was talking about. From a lot of mostly fraudulent IP autographs that got certified by PSA. Likely to be different authenticators, but just goes to show the inaccuracy of the medium or training of the employees.
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showth...ighlight=swift

And then there are the many errors of cards that were autographed and witnessed that PSA failed to authenticate. But most would rather them err on failing autographs rather than passing them.

I think it would be interesting to see if PSA is going to use AI in the future to help authenticate autographs. If so, would this one pass at that time?

AI likely will be useful for signature in the future. It already helps identify paintings by examining brushwork, etc.

Just so you know we had a thread a few month back about AI and the positives of it but the opportunities that still exist in it.

It was interesting but more related to the cards authenticating and grade them.

I am not sure if another member could find the thread.

It was a long and interesting read.

Jeff, here's that thread: https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?p=2132816

True story, friend went to some show/event where Dimaggio was signing to get an autographed baseball. He misspelled his last name.

thanks that was the thread.

But as I thought it was mostly about cards.

Not sure if the AI technology is currently is an issue or a strength for autographs.

Does anyone on this board know?

Not the only time this happened with Joe. There's a 1941 Play Ball card out there where he misspelled his name. It was sold at auction several years ago.

No disrespect to any one company but there really is no reason to authenticate or give your opinion on a Joe Jackson autograph unless it appears on a legal document. His inability to write his name is well known to the extent that it is mentioned in auction descriptions. There is no possible way, in my opinion, for anyone to authenticate his signature unless it is known conclusively that he wrote it, i.e. drivers licenses and other legally binding or official capacity items.

No matter what anyone says I do not believe that it is possible to differentiate between something that might be signed by an illiterate man from something that definitely was, other than you know for certain the circumstances surrounding the definitive example.

In all other cases, like with a supposedly signed photo, no opinion should be rendered and the item should not be accepted for examination. I doubt very strongly that any TPA has a wealth of experience authenticating the signatures of illiterate people.

Packs, I agree with you totally, and that's why I've said that it doesn't seem appropriate for either side to say that they are 100% certain. However, I also agree with drcy that an ink analysis would be huge here. Not necessarily the age of the ink, as old ink is available. But if there's a way to show conclusively how long the ink has been on the paper (without damaging the signature), that would go a heck of a long way to show that Joe signed it. I doubt anybody in 1911 was thinking of forging his signature on a photo.

The earliest example I see on PSA's site is from 1916, 5 full years after this photo. Unless there is anything to suggest another signature from 1911 exists on a legal document, I don't know how you even know Jackson could write at all in 1911.