well that doesnt seem too far in the grand scheme of things. Its certainly possible if they were training in the same state that they would have played and then the autographs retrieved later

The Giants photos were taken in September.

Tom C

A photographer having this many photos of two teams, regardless of timing and/or locations, seems completely reasonable to me. The fact that PSA has reviewed the prints and determined they are the right age (I know I'm repeating myself, but this question has come up twice since I mentioned this fact, and it's documented in the original link that was posted, yet I bet it comes up at least once more) makes me think that we should be concentrating on the signatures themselves, assuming PSA got it right with the prints - they are pretty good at that (again, I repeat myself). With that in mind...

Mathewson stinks. There are plenty of others that can easily be confirmed if anyone has the time and inclination.

I have no insight on the signatures, but I'd want to see the photos in person before I said they were from 1911.

Just an aside... A few years ago SABR published a book on Addie Joss who died in April, 1911. Perhaps a review of that book will reveal something of Cleveland's spring training schedule for that year.

Does this:

http://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/19...a/7130-80052.s

Seem consistent with this:

http://legendaryauctions.com/Napoleo...LOT169557.aspx

An observation on that Lajoie photo. Both the "i" in Lajoie and "i" in Alexandria have offset dots. Both of the "i"s are dotted over the following letter.

David, I would too. But all of us can't individually handle the prints, and PSA/DNA already approved them. I assume that would be Henry Yee or someone very closely associated with him. I'm good with their opinion.

The signatures, not so much.

Just as a side note that I viewed this album in person at the National Convention last year at the Heritage booth. I was skeptical of the autographs but the photographs themselves to appear to be original to the time period, but in pristine condition. They are silver gelatin prints and from what I could tell from a cursory examination, they do appear to be original to the purported date of 1911.

Rhys

Here's a few facts that can be confirmed...

Spring Training site for the Cleveland Naps (now Indians) from 1910-1911 was in Alexandria, Louisiana.
SOURCE: http://www.clevelandareahistory.com/...-training.html

Shoeless Joe Jackson played on the Cleveland Naps from 1910-1915.
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoeless_Joe_Jackson

"F. W. Smith, of Cleveland, for 21 years staff photographer for the "Plain Dealer" and "Leader," announces that he has left newspaper work to devote his entire time to home portrait, commercial and speed photography. Good luck to you, friend Smith!"

SOURCE: (Abel's Photographic Weekly, July 1, 1922) https://books.google.com/books?id=NI...Dealer&f=false

Frank W. Smith obviously lived in Cleveland so that would explain the reason they were in Northeast Ohio.

Here's the part I get lost on... The description of the Christy Mathewson photo says, "Mathewson following through on a warm-up toss before a slowly filling grandstand at Chicago's West Side Grounds".

Why would Frank Smith, the Plain Dealer photographer be in Chicago shooting a Giants-Cubs game? Would he pick up a photo from another photographer to get signed? I doubt that. Any thoughts or theories?

Tom said the Giants photos were taken in September (would have to be Sept 27-Oct 1, Matty threw Sept 28), so late in the season when the NL outcome was soon approaching. The Giants won the NL pennant that year, with the Cubs finishing second, so one of these two teams was likely to win the pennant. It wouldn't be unusual for the newspaper to send their sports photographer to Chicago to cover a series between the two - 4 games, especially given that Cleveland was in Philadelphia during that period and got back home on October 2 to play Detroit.

Thanks Scott.

My pleasure, Matt - I love digging around MLB REF. I was hoping to find that Cleveland was in Chicago at the same time as the Giants, but that would have been too easy.

Prior to finding out that PSA/DNA had checked out the physical prints, I was very skeptical about this - those wide white borders and the minty appearance didn't look right. But given PSA gave their approval, if HA had not included Jackson, Lajoie and Matty, I would have had no problem believing everything was authentic, or at least would have looked more closely at McGraw, Marquard and a few others (which I have not). The Jackson was just too much, and Matty doesn't match anything any of us have seen (I don't think) - the only thing it has going for it is the inscription, which matches up fairly well with an exemplar on PSA's site.

But you have to remember - the major AH's aren't trying to sell to us. For us, the pieces will sell themselves. They are going after the collectors who don't pay attention to this forum.

Sleep well knowing that if something is bad, none of your internet friends will get burned.

The stops and starts in the last name absolutely do. The very unique letter N is very close as well.

Tom C

I was wrong about the item description. The description on the Lajoie photo does not say that the inscription was written by the photographer. It seems to suggest that Lajoie is credited with the inscription.

Agreed, that's actually the best Lajoie exemplar I've seen for matching up with the Frank Smith example.

Tom - have you found any Matty exemplars that compare favorably?

None as of yet. Not really interested in these as a whole so I haven't done much investigating. Just kind of picked the low hanging fruit that was posted by jad22 and gave my opinion on it. I was interested a while back in figuring out when the Giants photos had been signed and used a player database to see when those particular players were with the team at the same time. Turned out to be September through the end of the year 1911.

Tom C

Marquard is dated October 1, so you were spot-on on the dating.

are matty autographs that rare?

Pete, I'm not sure. Matty autographs cost so much that I'm not even remotely in the market for one, so I only follow them casually.

There are loads of good Mathewson exemplars to choose from, and given that we've discussed Jackson and Lajoie, Matty seemed like the next logical one to look at. I doubt all of them are bad - the commons and non-stars are likely all authentic. If the Jackson wasn't in the lot, and the Matty looked better, I probably wouldn't question any of them. But the former is, and the latter doesn't.

Yes they are.
Now after all the back and forth who can say that they would buy that collection. Given everything that you now know.:confused:

hmmm...i'm not an auto guy...but I have a former hygienist who's husband has an early 20's giants team ball w/matty, mcgraw, youngs...I think I posted pics of it way back when the board was older.

Rhys, doesn't the sizes and big white borders seem unusual for the 1911 time period?

I can't speak on the autographs, but based on what I see on the Heritage site, and the sizes that all seem to be either standard studio 8x10 or 5x8 + the big white borders, they seem to fit into the early 1920's time period or so.

Doesn't mean he didn't take these pictures in 1911 and then have them developed at a later date, and then maybe track these guys down one by one..........though that then negates the Mathewson.

Or, explains why the Matty may not be good, when many of the commons appear to be.

"If the commons are good, the expensive ones must be good as well."

This is a thought that forgers have been relying on for years.

Ordinarily I'd agree but in this case all of the photos are said to come from the same source.

It's a bit of a conundrum.

When it comes to things like this, I never automatically take these stories as true, regardless of how sweet the little old lady is, etc. If only the Jackson, or only the Jackson and Matty are bad, there are many possible scenarios as to how that occurred. A common misconception is that because forgeries are abhorrent to us, that they are the product of inferior minds. Forgers are not always dummies - often they are both more creative and more intelligent than you.

if the same type of pen is used, with the same consistent amount of aging/fading from the common stars up to the matty...and if the commons are good, then i'd think the lajoie/jax/matty are also good. who back then would even have a joe jackson examplar to forge from? if they're bad then they're all bad...if they're good then they're all good.

now if it can be proven the photos are period but the ink came much later then the possibility of funny business is greater. like i said with a hoard this big psa probably had all these questions in mind while doing the authentication, you would think.

+1

-1

Yes, if the prints are from 1911 and the ink is from 1911, then they are probably good. Do you know anyone who tests ink on autographs prior to selling them? If you were a forger, you wouldn't try to duplicate the aging/fading of the ink to match some of the commons that you were slipping your high-$ items in with? :confused:

Also, take a few minutes and look at all of the commons - the aging/fading/whatever you want to call it, differs among them. My guess would be that most, if not all, are authentic. But the Matty and Jackson? …they match each other pretty well and are crystal-clear.

And we have seen plenty of forgeries where the 'experts' thought the ink 'looked' vintage.

Scott, Is there a way to test the ink for how old it is? I realize something like this would most likely be expensive but for one of the rarest autos out there I believe the piece of mind would be worth whatever it cost.

Quite a number of years ago, an associate of mine had ink tested. We were trying to nail Ron Dross, that big fat SOB who was probably the first modern day forger of baseball autographs. May he not RIP.
Ink testing is quite expensive, thousands of dollars for one item.
The test will only tell you when the ink was manufactured, not when it was placed on the paper. Old ink is available and can be obtained by anyone if they search for it. I was at an antiques/collectibles show in AC and saw a dealer with a pyramid of old unopened ink bottles.

I know TPA's have there goods and bads but could PSA get all of these wrong? I think with the value of these autographs the would have looked at them a hundred times over would they have not found something wrong if they were fake? Richard, What are your thoughts about it? Has anyone here been up close to the items and seen them in person? I would like to see this be real but like everyone else have alot of questions and doubt. Can anyone prove that her husband got these photos out and looked at them all the time?

We should start a thread about 'most convincing stories about expensive autographs that turned out to be bullshit'. I think you would be amazed at all the sweet little old ladies and wonderful loving grandfathers, who somehow had their items switched out at some point for forgeries. Maybe it was while they were in the barn?

Im not saying its not all bullshit but I would love to see a perfect collection like this for once to be real. If and only if that Jackson auto is real, it was wonderfully preserved for sure. Ive seen some great storys about items. There is an ebay listing now for an uncertified Maris photo signed. The seller says " I know this one is real because all the real ones on ebay are 8.5 x 11" Every time I read that it makes me laugh!

Oh man, I could use a lie detector in my place. The stories that I hear :eek:
However, some of them fortunately turn out to be true. But I am always skeptical.

And almost all of the Mantle, Williams and Joe D. that are 4x6 are fake.
Right, Florida??

Agreed. I hope it is all real. I think it will hinge on the Mathewson - if the experts give it the 'thumbs down', the Jackson will fall as well. But that's only here.

The goal is to sell this stuff to deep-pockets boys who don't frequent our board. As long as the item is 'believable' to them, that is all that counts. If the AH voices enough faith in the item via their advertising and catalogs (and 'expert' TPAs :rolleyes: ), the marks will bid.

I don't care what the "experts" say. They each have a dog in this fight.

The Jackson and Mathewson are bad.

(isn't it amazing? The two most valuable signatures (by far!) don't look anything like they should.)

What is the tip off on the Mathewson that you see? I am just curious. I know very little about his signature. Seems like nobody knows if the biography signatures were ghost signed or not. Some say fake and others say real.

.....

I just remember reading in Keurajian's book that he had not seen an authentic signed "Won in the Ninth".

I thought some were good and some were bad.

But I did a little research so that I could give you an honest response. After looking at as many 'won in the ninth' inscriptions as I could find, I think almost all of them are secretarial, signed almost always by one of two signers. There is a huge tell on all of them that they were not signed by Matty. More later.

A few more thoughts on the Matty. Mathewson had some variance in his signature, and some of the variants were slow and deliberate, like the one on this photo - the example we are looking at would be the easiest Matty style to forge. If you look at check examples from the 1920's, you'll see a few that are very slow and plodding like this. Not so much with other authentic signatures from the ca. 1911 period - they are generally signed quickly and confidently.

Here are two signatures with 'Yours Truly', from two different periods, that were both signed quickly and confidently - the flow is perfect. Draw your own conclusions.

There is a straight foreword standard test for determining how long writing has been on the paper. It's done by taking a small sample and determining how dried out is the ink by timing how long it takes to dissolve in solvent. It takes longer to dissolve the longer the writing has been on the paper and a short time if the writing is recent. Even years after the writing, the ink continues to dry out. Many forgeries have been identified using this method.

The other method involves identifying the specific chemicals and substances in the ink. That's the test that would be expensive.

Thanks for posting these, Scott. The hell with flow--compare the photo to these, and it's obvious that not a single letter formation is correct.

The photo is rubbish.

For some reason I was thinking Matty passed away sooner then he did. I guess he could have signed that format of photo near the end of his life.

I don't think there's any way those photos were signed in 1911, but early to mid-20's could be a possibility, if they are legit.

The problem is that some will compare these autographs, letter for letter, with the one on the photo, and they will think they are similar, not realizing that if you attempted to copy the two examples I provided, the hesitation in the flow of your writing would yield something similar to what's on the photograph. So I am abandoning that angle of discussion.

Imagine yourself doing the drunk field test while you are stone-cold sober, versus when you are fighting to stay out of jail. That would be the second two examples versus the one on the photo.

It is similar to slowly-written checks from the 1920's, but the s-o connection crushes that possibility - not even vaguely like anything Mathewson ever did. Look at a few examples by googling 'Mathewson signed check'. You will find examples that look similar to this one and you will see what I'm talking about.

Good discussion.