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.

If they are not capable of determining autographs without witnessing the signature, and did not certify autographs because of it, PSA would also stop grading cards since that requires them to be "authentic" and "unaltered", two additional things they cannot accomplish. Then what would their millions of customers do?

I didn’t say anything about any other persons autograph. I was speaking specifically about the signature of an illiterate person and my reason was pretty specific.

It's plausible, but I doubt it. They would need separate training data for each signature they want to authenticate, and would need a very large sample of both known authentic signatures and forged signatures for it to learn from. Many thousands of examples for each player. And if the background behind the autos is an image, as opposed to just a plain white background, then they would need even more. Then they would need to pay a highly skilled worker to build a separate model, fine tuning the parameters and hyper-parameters for each player. For a player like Joe Jackson with a mere handful of known examples, it simply wouldn't be possible to do with AI. For a player like Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Bob Feller or Michael Jordan though, it could be done. I don't know how useful/accurate the results would be though, as I've never built models for this specific application, but I suspect a skilled data scientist could build a model that would likely outperform any human expert for this specific problem. However, the juice probably isn't worth the squeeze. If you think auto authentication is expensive now, just wait until the cost increases 10-fold.

The dryness test I mentioned judges how long the ink has been on the paper. It's a standard test.

OK. That's the one in which you said that a "small bit" of the ink has to be removed. How much is a "small bit," and how would it affect the signature? And how specific can it nail down the range of time that the ink was on the paper? Because I'm thinking that if it can give a definite range within a few years give or take of 1911, it would go a very long way to authenticate the signature. Other than his wife, who had a distinctive way of signing his name, who else would be putting his autograph on a photo? Who else even knew what his signature looked like? Assuming that the test doesn't do any visible damage to the signature, it would definitely be a worthwhile venture.

https://sports.ha.com/itm/autographs...a/7130-80051.s

This link was posted earlier in the thread, but I am going to post it again. If you have any faith in Heritage and their analysis of the photograph when they sold it in 2015, the answer to that question may very well be Frank W. Smith.

There may be new non-invasive ways to do it.

Determining age is a very significant test, because a forgery would be modern.

Here's something interesting, although I'm not sure if it means anything other than sloppy work by one of the auction houses. In the Heritage link that Chad posted, they describe it as a "labored pencil signature." But in the Christie's description, they call it "boldly signed by Jackson in black fountain pen."

Again, mentioning this only for timeline. In this SABR article, it says that Jackson signed his first professional contract with an X. I'm guessing the article is referring to Greenville in 1908. This photo is from 1911. So we know definitively that Joe Jackson could not write his name in 1908 and here is a photo with a pretty nice Joe Jackson just 3 years later. In fact, to me this photograph has one of the most fluid and well executed Jacksons of any I've seen, which again must have been signed shortly after he learned to write at all.

I think it's again important to know whether or not Joe Jackson could write his name in 1911. The earliest confirmed signature (on some kind of voucher) listed on PSA's site is from 1916.

They give an opinion, no more, no less. It is not binding and they are not held responsible for mistakes. Read the form you sign when submitting your item and that will be clear. I personally don't like the signature and agree that if he could only place an "X" on his 1908 contract it is unlikely he could sign his name this well in 1911. Perhaps, the famous photographer left a note stating that he personally witnessed Jackson signing his photo. Who knows for sure but you can bet PSA/DNA knew this was an extremely valuable item whenever they authenticated it and you have to assume they had a good reason for opining that it is authentic.

The good reason was not to make a big time / powerful AH mad at them and then the other motive is $$$$

I believe he signed/Xed the 1908 Greenville contract shortly before he got married. As his wife helped him with signatures by setting out an example for him to copy, it's possible that he was able to sign something by 1911.

However, I read that when he and his teammates went to a restaurant, he couldn't read the menu, so he would wait for everyone else to order and then choose the same as one of them. If he was that embarrassed to let his teammates know that he was illiterate, why would he let a photographer know that he needed his wife's help to sign his name? It's possible that he signed it outside of the photographer's presence, and then his wife or the photographer added the place and date (I don't believe for one second that he could have written that). But it seems that he signed his name only when he felt it was legally necessary. Why was this photo important enough for him to sign? Maybe because in his rookie year of 1911 he didn't want to disappoint his teammates and be the only one not to sign his picture. Of course all this is speculation and proves nothing other than it COULD be legit. An analysis proving that the ink has been there since 1911 would be a big positive. But with what we know now, I would hesitate to join either of the 100% sure sides.

I apologize if I missed this but does anyone know the expected return time on a $300 express submission?

Ummm........wrong thread maybe?

What seems weird to me is that the signature of Joe Jackson looks very labored, but the "Alexandria Mar 1911" looks pretty clean.

If someone else wrote the other information then they must have used the same pen because it sure looks like the same ink that was used for the signature.

I'm no expert but I can see people calling BS on this. What kind of "provenance" is supposed to be associated with this?

I believe the photographer may have added the "Alexandira 1911" afterwards. No comment on the authenticity of the autograph, but that is something I believe several collectors think when I have discussed this item with them.

I would imagine the ink would be from 1911 as it was adhered in the scrapbook with the entire team, all signed in ink. The photographer would have had no need to forge the autograph of a player he had free access to. The provenance and circumstantial evidence is very strong for the ink being period as it also looks like it should in the scans. Whether or not Joe signed it or someone else, no clue. Something I have been thinking about though is that if Jackson could not sign and someone was going to sign for him, why would they make it laboured and slow to make it look like his autograph?

I have no idea, just a couple of thoughts that have gone through my mind. I bought the "remnants of the album" with the other Cleveland players still in the photo album so maybe the blank sheet the Jackson was originally stuck to is still in there, when I get it from Christie's I will let you guys know.

Rhys

It's about a one week turnaround right now. But as stated above, I believe you're posting in the wrong thread.

1912 composite
 

This is from memory of something I owned about 30 years ago, but I had a composite of the team with head shots of all the players, including Jackson. I believe they were all in suits. I also believe there were signatures of each player under their image, in the composite, not live ink. Jackson’s had the distinctive E if I remember correctly. This is not meant to be anything more than an additional piece of information, that may be interesting to compare. Of course, I have no idea who may have signed the original for Jackson or any of the players, but I think they were meant to be autographs. Someone here may own it now or know how to find the image .

I believe I'm familiar with that piece. If it's the one I'm thinking of, the "signature" was not in Jackson's hand. Again without seeing it, I'm just assuming we're referencing the same item.

bgar3, is this it? It is from 1912, they are in suits, and it has facsimile autographs. It was really tough to locate, but ended up finding it listed on eBay (so you can buy it back if you want). Great memory you have, as it does have the distinctive "E." Not sure how well the rest of it matches up, but when his wife signed for him she didn't use that "E." So being from 1912, it does add to the mystery: https://www.ebay.com/itm/23393154896...ntid=425243949

What do you think about giving an opinion at all? Whether or authentic or not, I don't think it's possible for an authentication service to have someone on staff who specializes in the writing of illiterate people. He's not writing in block lettering but him being illiterate opens the possibilities for signatures that aren't his to be attributed to him. Labored writing is usually a tell for a lot of signatures but if every signature is labored, you're relying more and more on the story behind it and that's not how you're supposed to set about authenticating something.

+1
Well put. The bottom line is this should not have been slabbed or marketed as anything other than questionable. Provide the provenance and let the buyer make the decision. Responsibility and accountability are not at play here. I don't care if someone wants to drop this kind of money on an unknown, but it does speak to the continued failure of 3rd party authentication.

Steve, yes that is the image, however, mine was not the newspaper supplement, but a separate composite on cabinet card stock about 8x10 if I recall. Obviously, I would like to still have it.

If I'm correct I believe that the original print of this composite photograph first came to market from the Barry Halper auction , and there was some controversy as to Joe's signature on the composite at that time. Since then reprints of this have shown up at various times. Additionally if memory serves me correctly the composite in the Halper auction did not have the newspaper header on it and it was framed.
It was rumored at that time that the signature on the composite wasn't his and was accepted as not his but interestingly it supposedly became the template for his signature used later in life as evidenced by the Leland's purchase of the Darvick Joe Jackson in the early 1990's ( the only one ever sold at that time ) which was used as the standard for years and to which most Joe Jackson signatures match to . So this facsimile signature on the composite whoever it was signing Joe's name was used by Joe , some agree as his template. But all this is supposition for many years ... so we will never know. One more mystery to the Joe Jackson saga.

I believe it is official...

We had 122 posts when it was discovered, and now 125 debating the authenticity!

Stay classy!

You must be referring to one of these? If so do you recall where and when you bought it? Have heard there are many out there but I have never seen one come to auction.


Attachment 482814

Chase, yes, that looks like it. It definitely was not newsprint. I got it about 1987 from a local collector who had picked up a number of items from Jimmy McAleer’s estate. I traded it in the 1990’s if I recall. I haven’t seen another since.

For the record, that is exactly the piece I thought you meant.

That is the same item I was referencing in my above post.

That shows the value going up.

As the card market continues to spike to do does our debates

Our cards are going up faster than inflation! Middle America can barely afford to collect any longer.
.

Earliest I have found are a couple of 1915 signatures (one sold by REA posted here).

People mentioning Jackson's "labored" signature and that is a good definition of it, and while the signature in the photo in question appears labored...it is not labored to the extent Jackson's signature was..."very labored" is a better way to describe Jackon's signature.

The best example is that the Js are very fluid and smoothly formed in the photo compared to Jackson's very labored Js on most all other documents.

I dont think there is another real Jackson signature where he ends the "o" and tails with an up stroke...most are down strokes and some are a straight stroke...another red flag for me is the up and over tails on the "J"s that's very distinctive and I dont see another signature that looks like that.

And again cant stress enough the biggest red flag is how large that writing on the photo is...someone said you cant be 100% either way and that is correct...but I think it is not unreasonable to be firm on one side and Im firm fake.

I would like to ask for those who think it is real....IYO...what letters match known document signatures?

Make a case it's real

I think people are taking the easy way out by piling on the signature being no good. I have a whole bunch of thoughts on this:

ONE

When these were discovered, people also took the easy way out, saying that the Matty and Jackson didn't look good but that the rest of the "commons" were probably fine. I get the logic of thinking a forger would hide the big money fakes by putting them with the commons, but the flip side of that is that there is no reason to think someone collecting full team signatures would get only the commons but skip the stars. In fact, it should be the opposite, so this proves/suggests nothing.

TWO

The Giants photos, with their autographs on them, were used as a newspaper premium ahead of the 1911 World Series:

Attachment 482867

So, unless Frank Smith found someone to forge Matty's signature in the early fall of 1911 while having everyone else on his team sign their names, Matty should be ok as should all of the other Giants.

THREE

I am with Snowman on not putting too much stock in the Joe Jackson Museum guy's opinion. Unless he has some training in handwriting analysis that we don't know about, or specializes in the penmanship of illiterate people, I don't know why his opinion counts for any more than anyone else who can look at the handful of examples of Jackson's signature that can be found online. He may know as much about Jackson's life as anyone alive, but that does not make him a handwriting expert. (Just like I am not a handwriting expert.)

FOUR

I also don't think that the size of the signature compared to his others (https://www.psacard.com/autographfac...oe-jackson/21/) means much. All of the other examples are on small lines in documents - if handed a large photo with no signature guidelines on it and asked/convinced to sign it, of course he wouldn't write a tiny autograph down in the corner, he would do his best to make it fit with the size of the photo.

FIVE

Smith, the photographer, was the local Cleveland photographer. He knew the players - he also got two team's worth of these types of signed photos. The Giants make sense as a World Series assignment, the Indians make sense because they were his hometown team. The Indians had Spring Training in Alexandria LA only in 1910-1911, so maybe Smith took the Indians series in 1911, liked it, and later that season suggested that he could do the same thing for a Giants World Series preview.

SIX

This is not a lone signed Jackson photo coming out of nowhere, it was in a team album all of the same types of photos by a known local photographer who knew the players and did another similar signed team series in the same year that was published at the time the photos were taken/autographs obtained. The fact that Jackson was unskilled at signing his name combined with the extra large size of the signature to match the size of the photo, the lack of a signature line on the photo to guide him all, and the smooth/glossy surface of the photo, which is different to write on than the plain paper that all his other signatures are on (especially with a fountain pen), suggest that this signature might not end up being a perfect match for all of his other signatures. (And because of his difficulty signing, his other signatures are also far from perfect matches for each other.)

As I mentioned, l am not a handwriting expert. But I also don't think that any of the reasons being put forward to doubt this signature hold water.

Here are 3 "Alleged" 1912 Autographs of Joe Jackson. All are from the 1912 scrapbook donated to the Hall of Fame. The autographs are for sure from 1912....by who, can't say for sure.

While all signed by the same person, a very reputable authenticator believed they were not signed by Jackson. If people know the history of this book, 2 brothers from Pittsburgh would bring the scrapbook book to home games and get the signatures IP, sometimes handing it to a player in the dugout and that player would get the rest of the team. Rumor is Ty Cobb was so impressed, he stopped a game so the Tigers could sign... Anyways, make your own judgements.

<a href="https://app.photobucket.com/u/tazdmb/p/9a94ada9-b5fa-4db1-80a4-14427fc09ddd" target="_blank"><img src="https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/x25/tazdmb/Joe_Jackson.jpg?width=960&height=720&fit=bounds" border="0" alt="Joe_Jackson"/></a>

<a href="https://app.photobucket.com/u/tazdmb/p/df834587-88eb-4553-b6fb-b568fa2ef90f" target="_blank"><img src="https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/x25/tazdmb/Jackson_2.jpg?width=960&height=720&fit=bounds" border="0" alt="Jackson_2"/></a>

<a href="https://app.photobucket.com/u/tazdmb/p/992e8f06-1b1f-4452-b172-49d1c42a72cc" target="_blank"><img src="https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/x25/tazdmb/Jackson_1.jpg?width=960&height=720&fit=bounds" border="0" alt="Jackson_1"/></a>

tazdmb - those look like his wifes ghost signatures (attached wife signed 1919 contract)

Jobo - good points, one counter is people put facsimile writing and signatures on things all the time even in that time period, not an uncommon practice to do that. I would add that I think someone who has spent 20-30 years looking at Joe Jackson autographs would have a better idea of what his signature looks like than an employee at PSA (a company who has authenticated bad autographs in the past so their opinion is not above reproach either)

It is for sure possible one time in his life Jackson was handed a photo and signed it and happened to sign it completely different than he would sign everything else the rest of his life...but I doubt it

I think it is easy to yell fake if you are just doing it to be provocative...but trying to lay out reasons why someone thinks that is not the easy way and just opens them up to be questioned and possibly ridiculed (as has happened in this case)...the real easy way out and take here is someone blindly accepting it I would argue.

Ok I'll bring this up since I've not seen this brought up .
If the signature on the just auctioned photo is authentic , and the signature on the composite is authentic , and the 3 examples that Frank posted are authentic then can someone please explain what happened to Joe in a span of 5 -6 years to have his signature change so dramatically and actually become truly deteriorated compared to those earlier examples on the photo , the composite , and the books Frank posted ?
There is no mention of Joe developing or having any debilitating sickness or injury or physical limitations or alcohol abuse or mental issues which could cause drastic and rapid signature decline. Plus looking at his on field performance I think it's clear he had no problems.
So then what would be the cause of this drastic signature change ? AND yes it is a drastic change in his signature . His signature after roughly 1915 /1916 never changed for over 30 + years.

It would truly facilitate this discussion if someone is able to post large images of each known and alleged Jackson signature from 1911 on and in chron order so they're all in one place for visual reference. It's confusing to a simpleton like me when people discuss this signature or that one but one has to scroll around to find the image or images being discussed. Thomas did post a few images but at least on my screen they are small.

I was thinking the same thing.

My read of several comments is that the opinions of people who are not handwriting experts are to be taken with a grain of salt. Is there any reason to believe Steve Grad or the people at PSA/DNA have such training?

OK, here ya go. These are from PSA's website. I'm sure there are more verified signatures of his, but there are enough here to get an idea. I've isolated just the signatures and put them in chronological order as best I could (1915-1949; one wasn't dated). The last one is the auctioned photo. Here is the link from where I got them:https://www.psacard.com/autographfac...joe-jackson/21

+1 and well said. The strengths in favor of this being authentic, for me, are with the photographer and the accompanying photos of all the other team members who signed their name, paired with him doing this again with the Giants. As you stated, it would be quite a stretch to assert that the stars signatures are all fakes, but the commons are all legit.

I can't state with absolute certainty that this is 100% authentic, and neither should anyone else. But I find the arguments against it to be not very interesting, and if I were someone with 1.5m to spend on something like this, I would have had no problem bidding on it as I believe it is most likely authentic.

Awesome thanks. First impression is that the two capital J's in the '11 photo don't look the same as the rest, and the c is more open at the top. And we still have the Alexandria problem.

The Alexandria text is not a problem to me. In my opinion, that was clearly written by someone else.

I don't think it can be said with absolute certainty either way without knowing for sure that the ink has been on the photo since 1911. If that can be shown, it would be very convincing to me, as I doubt anyone would be signing his name back then so similarly to his actual signature that we'd be debating it 110 years later. That "E" is very distinctive, and even his wife didn't do it that way when she signed for him. But no matter what, I don't believe that he wrote the "Alexandria 1911."

I can see it either way. But certainly some experts see it as the same hand.

I don't think there is anyone who is stating that he also wrote Alexandria.

I think the part I have trouble with is that Frank Smith, for reproduction purposes, would enhance the signatures on his photos. His goal was a great and complete end product not that the sigs were 100% original. Fast forward to the 21st century and that innocent effort renders these questionable. If he or someone else wrote on the Jax photo what was to stop him with filling in other gaps?

All the other signatures have a c that is nearly closed at the top. They're very consistent.

Right, but if they are the same hand as some experts have opined, that of course rules out Jackson.

Hasn't the hobby deteriorated enough that the authentication on this one will be golden until the end of time? Seems there is always at least two buyers whose desire to own things far exceeds the desire to be certain the item is genuine.

Yeah that's the power of third party authentication. It at least shifts the burden of proof back to the party claiming inauthentic.

Great call, never saw the Mrs. signature from that early in his career. Agreed with wife signature.

Being written by the same person would certainly rule out ol Joe. What handwriting expert has made this claim?

Ron Keurajian, the author of two volumes of “Baseball Hall of Fame Autographs: A Reference Guide” that also include signature analyses of players from the 1919 Chicago White Sox, said that there are “no genuine signed images of Jackson in existence.”

In its auction listing, Christie’s said the Jackson autograph is “the lone surviving example of any type.”

Keurajian said he was skeptical about the photograph’s authenticity.

“Here’s a guy who was illiterate, but he can write ‘Alexandria’ on the photograph?” Keurajian told Cox Media Group via telephone on Thursday night. “And for those who believe Frank Smith wrote ‘Alexandria’ on the photo, so, he wrote it in the same hand as Jackson’s? That seems highly unlikely.”

And from Thomas Saunders here, who obviously knows a great deal.


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

If they were done by the same hand, my best guess would be Joe's wife. She could've replicated Joe's signature, and the "n" in "Alexandria" looks a lot like the "n" on the 1919 contract she signed for Joe. Not to mention, the odd "e" seen in both Joe's authentic and wife-reproduced sigs, and "Alexandria."

What is the reasoning arguing that they are in the same hand? Any idea? Signed at the same time is believable, but to my untrained eye the signature and the Alexandria line look totally different. I would also add that there appears to have been a lot more pressure (and therefore ink) applied in the Jackson auto than in the location and date - yet another thing that could be explained both ways, but a difference nonetheless.

One way to get at this would be to look through the albums for Frank Smith's writing --- perhaps when the balance of the Cleveland album makes it to Rhys we will be fortunate to see some of Smith's writing it in.

The Jacksons were married in 1908 so Mrs. Jackson may have been present, but there are a lot of differences between the wife-signed doc and Alexandria (the e and the a's really jump out).

Hopefully Thomas can answer this at least for himself. I really am not sure.