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.

With no resolve:)

I'm not an auto expert, but the first time I saw the Jackson sig in question, I said to myself, "no way is that real." Just doesn't have the same characteristics of the known authentic Jackson sigs.

Same for me on the Matty. Not an expert but just didn't look right. I have a hard time with the fact that these would even exist. Reminds me of those Ruth autographed photos in REA recently (I think it was REA).

The issue I have is that someone who is illiterate is going to have a hard enough time signing their name, but then add a place and date? Doesn't seem right. You look at the stuff Stan Coveleski signed and he always signed just his name.

oh, there's a resolve Shells...the Joe Jackson in the original post is a dime store phony, IMHO. If it's too good to be true it usually is. I respect the opinions of members here who have forgot more than I will ever know.

The story is ludicrous with this BARN FIND crap. That's where the story goes south for me...at the beginning. Honestly, the story is ridiculous, PURE AND SIMPLE. Just because the knuckle dragging Neanderthals at PSA say it's so, doesn't mean JACK. Their reputation is falling like crude oil, and this fiasco will only add to it.

Somebody is about ready to get taken behind the BARN and beaten like a red -headed step child.

From Chuck's post :"The story is ludicrous with this BARN FIND crap. That's where the story goes south for me...at the beginning. Honestly, the story is ridiculous, PURE AND SIMPLE. Just because the knuckle dragging Neanderthals at PSA say it's so, doesn't mean JACK. Their reputation is falling like crude oil, and this fiasco will only add to it."

Chuck I agree with you totally. My only exception is concerning their reputation falling. I believe it has fallen, is falling and will continue to fall amongst the knowledgeable collectors , such as those on this site, but I still believe that the unknowledgeable collector, the novice collector, and the easily persuaded or impressed collector will still be subject to their "impressive" credentials and slick LOA to guide them in their purchasing experience whether good or , mostly bad.

I think the Joe has become the new I found it autograph of the year.:p

If I actually found something worthwhile in a barn, I would leave out the part about the barn. Not sure why auction houses still think that this ebay-style story is appealing to bidders.

Oh I don't know. Didn't they find millions of dollars in the form of vintage cars in a barn a few months back.

Of course they were weathered unlike these autographs.

I have had the pleasure of digging through boxes of old papers and photo albums, found in barns, sheds, wooden garages, old houses, etc. - you name it. Needless to say, only the stuff found in actual houses survived in decent shape, and most of the time it had been looked at so often that it was as worn as an old comic book. The other papers were generally musty, mildewy, stuck together, ripped to pieces, water-damaged, cat-pissed-on, etc. The idea of something surviving 100 years in a barn in pristine shape is really unbelievable.

barnfind w/cars=GOOD

barnfind w/cards=BAD

now that's funny!:D

YES! Rob Lifson had a Shoeless Joe Jackson portrait photo signed in his auction over 20 years ago, I think. It had a glaze like substance to preserve the signature. I'll locate the auction and scan it. I believe it was authenticated by Charles Hamilton? It has been awhile.

Albert

Robert Edward Auction Sept 18, 1994 Pre internet.


Albert

Albert,
The Joe Jackson photo you listed here as part of an REA auction was also sold in the Barry Halper Collection auction by Sotheby's in 1999 as lot 455. It sold for $43,125 in the auction. I remember this lot at the time as being touted as the only known Jackson signed picture.
As to my knowledge it has not entered the market since then, although I could be wrong and missed it if it reentered the market.
The only thing known is that the picture is from 1912 and the signature ( if it is real) is as well according to the lot description in the catalog.
Looks different from the one in Heritage supposedly just 1 year apart assuming it was " signed" in 1911 as listed on the photo's date.

Jackson photo bidding up to 90,000 dollars as of this morning!

n54 did its job again :D

Wow.

The Giants trained in Marlin, TX didn't they?

Yes, I mentioned that in Post #50 in this thread:

...In The Glory of Their Times, Fred Snodgrass says, after McGraw offered him a contract for the 1908 season:

"Well, as you can well imagine, I was on that train four days later, going to marlin Texas...The Giants had bought a piece of property in Marlin, Texas, a town of about 4,000 or 5,000 people, and had constructed a bal, park there for spring-training purposes...We trained there every spring I was with the Giants, which was until 1915..."

The Giants photos were taken in late September or early October of that year...at least that is what the player selection tells me.

Tom C