And that is exactly why someone earlier brought up provenance as a contributing factor.

For example, what if your Grandfather had gotten a card signed by Babe Ruth in person, and then years down the road told you the story and then gave it to you. Now would that make a difference to you?

Going back to the early-'70s, I've always taken a camera to signings. Many of those pix are posted in another thread here, and in some of them you can see the actual item being signed. Even with that, if I ever tried to sell them I can totally see someone saying, "Yeah, but how do I know that's the EXACT SAME 1973 Topps Mays that Willie is signing in that picture?"

https://thecollectorconnection.com/b...x?itemid=21487

"JSA Mistakenly identifies coach George Jendrus Anderson as HOF'er George "Sparky" Anderson who was only 14 years old in 1948 and 10 years away from his major league debut."

Of course if they have the wrong George Anderson how the hell did they authenticate the autograph?

EDIT: This was a mistake and my apologies to JSA. This is a PSA authenticated piece, NOT JSA.

TPA do turn away good autographs I know for a fact...Im sure there are several stories like this out there and I dont remember which company he submitted to, but this is a story a friend of mine related to me:

He would attend New York Yankee spring training almost every year in the 60s-70s era and had tons of autographs of those players he got in person including many Thurman Munson signatures...every one of those Munson sigs he sent in was rejected.

I have no doubt JSA makes mistakes but I personally think they make less and I believe are the preferred authenticator of REA which I love as an auction house (they treat people right)...Beckett is the worst at autographs...PSA might be a little better after Keating joined them...but they have a bad track record.

Obviously a big problem for them all is that they like have authenticated bad signatures when they first started, or assumed a signature was authentic that might have sold in a high profile auction (Barry Halper) that wasnt and those are examples they use in their databases. They need to go back and reevaluate and purge bad and questionable signatures from their files...I dont know if they do this or not but they should, it would help.

The some of the best advice I got about collecting autographs is if it makes you feel bad or you question it in any way...dont buy it

also would share this story:

I have bought 2 Happy Felsch signatures that I submitted and were rejected by JSA, one I thought was questionable and likely fake (came with a money back guarantee) and one that I think was 100% authentic but was signed on a dark part of a newspaper picture so hard to see. Believe I got my money back on both but obviously lost out on the fees for submission.

I have never submitted to PSA, though I think I would knowing Keating is on their team now which helps, and never will submit to Beckett. Honestly I prefer that an authenticator errs on the side of caution, sure they will fail authentic signatures some times but they will also filter out the fakes more often than not...just my opinion on it and this like everything else is very debatable.

But if a collector is knowledgeable, has a good eye and is 100% comfortable with a signature Im in the camp of dont waste your money bc you probably know better than any TPA....if you are looking to sell unfortunately that goes out the window now unless you are one of a handful of dealers known inside the collector's universe

JSA is known to authenticate items at shows without watching the signings as long as you bought the ticket. So you could swap items with no problem, if you chose.

They also authenticated the T206s outed on this board in Sharpie marker.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=262673 But then, so did SGC and one got through PSA as well.

If a data scientist who claims he does not know enough about the authentication space can give the thumbs up on the Jax then JSA surely can. After all, there should be room for human error....i.e. guessing or just taking a leap of faith based on a story or provenance.

To be correct, they mistakenly say JSA wrongly identified Anderson. The link shows PSA/DNA to be the authentication culprit making the mistake based on the pictures of the item.

Since you clearly care most about my opinion in this thread, allow me to correct it for you. As I stated above, by just looking at the autograph and photo, I think Peter's stance of remaining agnostic is the best position to take. Note that a position of agnosticism would prevent it from being authenticated. I only stated that I lean towards it likely being authentic, not that I think it definitely is. But in large part, my inclination to think it is more likely authentic than not has much to do with the fact that both PSA and JSA authenticated it. I trust their opinions more than I do the opinions of a handful of collectors on the internet despite the fact that I fully acknowledge and expect that the experts will offer incorrect opinions a fair percentage of the time.

Regardless, you should continue to ridicule and berate me. It's a good look. People love reading that stuff.

When it comes to cards I like my own opinion on authenticity. Since, like you, I know next to nothing about the auto authentication space but know it is affiliated with the same inept and corrupt companies who slab tons of bad cards I do put weight into what a handful of collectors...collectively think...especially when what they think is well thought through and articulated. And in this case there is more than enough info having been provided that would have been enough for me to pass if I were in the market.

Ridiculing and berating? Nah you will know when I am doing that. Just bothered by your contrarian know it all attitude. I will try to do better.

Chase, it's not just a handful of collectors, it's experts like Ron Keurajian who have questioned the authenticity. I would tend to trust someone like him on this more than a company like PSA or JSA.

His credentials? the author of two volumes of “Baseball Hall of Fame Autographs: A Reference Guide."

Oh wait, Joe isn't in the Hall, never mind.

I believe someone, probably Thomas, mentioned that Richard Simon (not sure he still posts here) is also skeptical. He always impressed me from afar with his expertise.

Crap I'm an idiot. My apologies to JSA. Will fix the auction listing for posterity and will ADD the apology to all of my posts in this thread dealing with this piece.

It's not even a Spence era PSA piece, don't know what I was looking at.

I don't recall home run balls, but I had heard that about Pete Rose and bats from a bunch of hits leading up to the record.

Home run balls wouldn't be impossible though, and it wouldn't surprise me.

So, you prefer your own opinion over that of the experts when it comes to authenticating, despite admitting you "know next to nothing" about it. Got it. However, you do know enough to know that they are inept. After all, the interwebs told you so. Also, forum groupthink informs you of what opinions you ought to hold. Brilliant! Oh, and you think the case made above regarding the Jackson photo was ironclad, despite someone clearly having refuted nearly every argument proposed, one by one, with photo examples. You'll do well here. Keep up the good work!

Oh, and 'know-it-all' is hyphenated. ;)

No one has refuted any of the arguments. They just disagreed.

Regarding the provenance, I’ve read that the couple who sold the scrapbook to Bowen was “friends with Frank Smith’s family.”

Obviously anyone can make this claim. Is it fair to assume that part of authenticating the “only signed photo of Jackson in existence” involves verifying this claim? Or was it simply the case that having a scrapbook of Smith photos and living in the CLE area is proof enough of the friendship?

As Joe Orlando says, the job is to be skeptical, so I wonder what evidence here satisfied the skepticism of all involved.

The photo could've been handed to Joe and he might've said "I'll sign it later," and then had his wife sign it for him.

I've seen a couple glaring examples of "provenance" being given so much weight it was ridiculous. Two examples in the GU arena:

1. Years ago, a major AH had a GU Hank Aaron bat with great provenance. It had come directly from a guy who only played one season in the majors - 1970. He faced Aaron in a game that year, struck him out or something, and after the game, he claims he went to the Braves locker room and Hank gave him the bat. The AH pulled down that "provenance" story when I pointed out the Aaron GU bat was from the 1973-75 labeling period.

2. A former player, having been released towards the end of the season, took with him his jersey and pants, and gifted them to a well known broadcaster. They ended up in an auction earlier this year, which I won. The jersey and pants were graded MEARS 10 attributed to that player, because of that impeccable provenance, and the jersey really is nice. So are the pants, but they are quite clearly tagged as belonging to a different player - a guy who wore the same uniform number for many consecutive years with that same team, who played in almost all of the games that year, The pants have that player's number stitched into them, and the use on the pants is heavy, as would be expected for that guy, who stole bases and was a star player. The fellow they supposedly belonged to, on the other hand, was a relief pitcher who never stole a base in his decade long career. And he also had the same uniform number his entire career with several different teams, and it is not what's in those pants.

What obviously happened is that the player grabbed his shirt, easily identifiable with his big uniform number on the back, and then just grabbed a pair of pants that were the correct size out of a hamper, not caring, or not paying attention to the tagging, to make sure they were actually his. In fact, I'll bet most players never pay attention to uniform tagging to begin with.

So much for provenance. A well told story should never outweigh what an item actually is.

From other exemplars of his wife's signature it seems fairly clear it isn't hers. It's either Jackson or Smith IMO. I suppose it could also be someone who forged his signature much later.

Yes there were some great points made on the original thread in 2015 here, as well as this thread and the Blowout thread but that is cowardly groupthink, conformist reasoning! We must discount them entirely.


SNOWMAN MELTDOWN ALERT!!!!!
No you silly boy that is not what I wrote. 3 post grad degrees and yet you continually misread what people write here. Helps a discussion if you are less consumed with your own opinion and actually able to understand someone else's opinion.

Yes I know the same companies who encapsulate lots of altered cards employ autograph authenticators who are routinely making errors in their assessments. I never take an authenticated card as being authentic—not until it passes my tests. I would have thought Snowman, the consummate contrarian, would appreciate that I like to think for myself and not fold when presented with a differing view. I guess only you are permitted to oppose other opinions.

Again…read, Snowman, read…Maybe you can have your 3 year old show you how to do that? Based on all that has been presented here in 2015, in this thread and on Blowout, I feel there is just enough doubt that I am not comfortable with the authentication on the Jackson. Sorry that you were not able to persuade me given your vast knowledge and experience in the autograph authentication space.

The exemplar you linked from the REA auction has a "k" unlike anything I've ever seen on a supposedly autographed Jackson item. However, his 1919 contract, which is shown in this thread, and supposedly wife - signed, is reasonably close to Joe's writing. I wonder if the REA wife signature is an outlier, because if that's how she always wrote it, then she didn't sign that 1919 contract, and Joe also must've used someone else's example as a template for drawing his name, because he sure wasn't attempting to match that "k."

Katie Jackson's signature changed from 1910s to the 40s-50s...most of her examples are from the 40s and 50s filling autograph requests. She was usually present at contract signings with baseball clubs (famously wasnt for Joe's 1920 contract as the story goes and I have not seen his 1920 contact surface...if someone has that picture as an aside to this I would love to see it) That 1919 contract and the 1912 album someone posted here is her signature...

I would have to re-read Gropman's bio of Jackson (he actually interviewed people who knew Joe and his sister was one of them he talked with) but I believe Jackson learned by tracing over what Katie wrote and then copying what Katie wrote until he could do it on his own...so stands to reason there would be some similarities between the two.

As another aside...I think (I could be misremembering this and totally wrong) in the early days of collecting Mrs Jackson's signature was actually thought of as Joe's signature...I dont know when the public and collecting community learned that Katie was who was actually signing items and not Joe...maybe someone on here knows that.

Are there examples of a signature believed to be hers with that distinctive "e"? I can't recall now.

Lol. Even the guy who made the arguments above agreed that I refuted several of them with the examples I gave. Clearly, you didn't even read my post.

Clearly you didn't read his post. He said only two of your were even well stated. Then he pointed out how he disagreed with them. You are entitled to your opinion just like everyone else is this thread. Acting like your opinion is the only correct one is not a good look.

There is a difference between acknowledging someone has made a worthy counterpoint, and admitting your argument has been refuted. As I read it, Thomas was doing the first, not the second, thing.

I have told him so on several occasions now. Proves he is just here to argue/debate for the sake of arguing/debating.

He seems to have too much ego invested in these discussions. I disagree with many people frequently, rats60 and Mark17 and packs certainly, but we're just enjoying the give and take and not taking it personally or looking to win.

I'll clarify for you since apparently you're not getting this. Go read the post again, because clearly you didn't even read it. I wasn't offering an "opinion" in most of those counter arguments. He made numerous false claims. I simply posted examples to show that his claims were false. You don't get to have an "opinion" on whether or not a line goes up. The line either goes up or it doesn't. You don't get to have an opinion on whether or not there are wide gaps between the letters in the example photos I posted. The gaps are either present or they are not (and in these examples they are extremely clear and obvious gaps). You don't get to have an opinion on whether or not the tail of his J's sometimes go up, reaching near the top of the J. They either do or they don't. Each of these examples were presented by him as reasons for why the autograph is fake. I simply provided photographs of known examples that irrefutably disproved those claims. You don't get to say "oh that's just your opinion" or say "agree to disagree" or any such nonsense. I swear you guys will sit here and argue that red is blue and 2 is 4.

This has nothing to do with ego. I'm just an idiot. I'm basically allowing myself to continue in a conversation with a room full of crazy people who are pointing at a red stop sign and saying it's blue. Then my dumbass goes and pulls up examples of red and blue on a color chart and uploads photos of red stop signs to prove that the stop sign in question is red, not blue. Then the net54 asylum inamtes respond by saying "that's just your opinion".

If we can't all agree that I clearly disproved at least those 3 points listed above, then I'll just move on and be done with this thread because it has clearly become something other than an honest conversation on your end. But you should expect me to address you condescendingly in all future interactions if that is the position you wish to take.

This is the great self-deception of the narcissist -- he is the only intelligent person in the room and everyone else is stupid. Or crazy. Man, it must be lonely at the top.

Yes, you showed that for a couple of the apparent unique features of the 1911 signature but not all, there was another exemplar that appeared to have the same feature or close to it. Still, for each of those features, and I think I am correct about this, MOST of his known signatures did not have that feature. So the significance is still very much a matter of opinion.

Thank you. This is the only thing I'm asking of people who are engaging in this conversation. All I ask is that people are honest and that they accept basic facts. If we can't have that, then there's no point in discussing. There are many other things we can have a difference of opinion on, and that's fine. But if we start saying things like "that's just your opinion" on whether or not a line goes up or down, then we're all just wasting our time here.

If someone said this I must have missed it.

Here is what I said:
"majority of his other signatures end with a downward stroke with some ending with a straight/even stroke. This one has an obvious up stroke"

and then

"Of the up tail endings you posted one is a straight line I would say, one slight up tail after a long straight stroke, and one long gradual but obvious. Yet none are done in a sharp quick stroke that matches the short sharp one on the photo."

And this is the one example (attached) you showed to counter my point which I am talking about when I said "one is a straight line I would say"...

Yes one clearly goes up and one does not comparatively (or down for that matter)...thus is pretty much looks like a straight line

I appreciate a dissenting view point and opinions and again as I have said before you made some good points which causes me to reevaluate and think more, but now I do think you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing at this point, which is fine but Im not really interested in that if people are going to be misquoted, taken out of context, accused of making "false claims" (I take umbrage to the charge that I have made "false claims") when this is all entirely subjective for the most part, and people are having to repeat themselves bc it seems like you have either not read previous posts or failed to grasp what was trying to be said (which might not be your fault as that could be someone, myself included, doing a poor job of explaining).

Again thanks for the counter points and the time in doing that I do appreciate that, but given all the rest... Im done engaging and trying to explain myself as I thought I did well enough and clarified when asked and where I thought needed and if not then sorry I tried best way I could.

Yall have fun with this

And at the end of the day, not sure why each of us cannot decide for ourselves if we feel good with the authentication or not If not then we should not get abused and described as crazy while the accuser is simply decides be is the only one being courageous. Talk about someone being full of themselves. WOW.

Travis/Snowman, That is what all of you are doing, just wasting your time.

You stated to others that you look to deal in facts, not opinions, right? When it comes to autographs, I don't know if you can qualfy anyone as an "expert", since to begin with it is a proven and known FACT that no matter how hard someone tries, they can never sign their own name exactly the same way twice. So if the person doing the signing can't even duplicate their own signature, how is some third party going to be able to tell the difference between that person's true signature and that of a skilled forger? And I believe that is one of the main reasons so-called "experts" can determine the use of an auto-pen, because all the signatures are exactly the same.

Truth and FACT is, all a so-called autograph "expert" can prove with 100% certainty is that an autograph is fake, like when the item signed wasn't created till after the alleged signer had already passed away, or the ink is analyzed by a chemist and found not to be old enough to have been available when the alleged signer was still alive (ie: T206 cards autographed with Sharpies). Truth and FACT is, unless they actually witnessed a person signing their name on an item, no so-called "expert" can guarantee with 100% certainty that anyone's autograph is legitimately signed by the alleged signer.

So unless some autographed item is definitively proven to be 100% fake, and there was no "expert" on hand that actually saw the item being signed by the alleged signer, the chances of any autograph being legitimate, or fake, is going to be between 1% and 99% (and I'm using round numbers so don't someone be a jerk and say it should be 99.9999...%, or something like that).

Now here is the biggest and most important FACT of all. Since pretty much all autographs will likely fall into this wide range of uncertainty somewhere between 1% and 99% as to whether they are legit or not, it will be up to the collecting public at large to decide whether or not a particular autograph is legit or fake. The so-called autograph "experts" do not, I repeat, DO NOT, decide on behalf of autograph collectors if something is legit. Not having seen an item actually being signed, all any "expert" can do is offer their OPINION on whether or not they think any particular autograph is real or fake. And that "expert(s)" OPINION is then taken into account by the collecting public, along with all other pertinent facts, stories, evidence, provenance, along with the multitude of thoughts and opinions of all the autograph "non-experts" out there, and then the overall collecting public will be the one to decide if they accept a particular autographed item as real, or not. And from all the back and forth arguing going on in this thread, guess what? It really doesn't matter because the collecting public has already decreed they feel it is legit by the simple, incontrovertible fact that at least two collectors saw fit to be willing to pay out over $1M for this signed Joe Jackson picture, whether it was truly his signature or not. We on Net54 make up an extremely small portion of the overall collecting community, especially in light of the recent surge in new collectors/investors, and their apparent obscene amounts of disposable cash to spend on such collectibles. And furthermore, whether we like it or not, this overall collecting community now includes these new people and their money. And another FACT, they, along with rest of us "old time" collectors, effectively vote for and show how we feel about an item's legitimacy and value by the dollars we are willing to pay for it. And let's face it, even with all the crazy money being thrown around in the hobby today, any time you see a single item go for over $1M, that is still extremely rare and speaks to the acceptance and deemed authenticity of an item in the eyes of the collecting community today.

So you guys can go back and forth about if it is real or not, the collecting public, not the "experts", have already decided it is real. Or if nothing else, due to all the story and drama surrounding the alleged Jackson autograph on this photo, it is considered as the most valuable baseball related autograph I've ever heard of.

Continuing to argue about this is like the other thread arguing about who is the greatest pre-war ballplayer, which got into a pissing match between Cobb and Ruth proponets. Truth is, there is no correct answer as pre-war baseball is split into two very distinct eras with Cobb playing more in the deadball era and Ruth in the live ball era. They are both great in their own ways and styles of play. I learned Ruth supporters can be very opinionated and unwilling to have any openess to facts, and merely say they are right, and have no open mindedness at all. They are also good at accusing people of saying things they didn't say or mean, because that is what they think. And the same stubborness and unwavering opinions are being shown on this thread as well. And for the record, Ruth is not a five tool player, which many people look at in determing if a player is great or not. Doesn't mean he's better or worse than Cobb, who should be considered a five tool player, just that is one thing Ruth wasn't, but Cobb was.

And Travis/Snowman, I'm not directing this at, or specifically picking on you. You were just the last person to post when I started this response. LOL Guys, let this thread go. There is no right or wrong answer. And the price paid for the picture says it is considered worth a helluva lot, regardless!!!

So here's a question I have for everybody. If you paid $1.4 million for this photograph, would you want to then pay for an ink analysis to find out for sure whether the writing was done in 1911 and the signature and place/date are in the same ink? Or would you rather not do that, to avoid the chance of finding out that you just spent a lot of money on something written in 2011?

It come with a LOA/COA or whatever they call it. So I would treat it like most treat PSA graded cards. It is exactly what the flip/LOA/COA says no matter what it really is.

If it was non-destructive, then yes.

I'd also want written assurances that the AH would make good on the item if it failed. That sort of stuff is usually arranged ahead of time.

I’d normally expect such a thing was already baked into the authentication process…but of course it was not.

Still wouldn’t establish Joe vs Katie vs someone else back then, but obviously would at least rule out a modern forgery.

Have read different descriptions as to whether auto is in pencil or pen. Can anyone clarify?

I posted screenshots above. Heritage said pencil, Christie's said fountain pen ink. Which seems pretty odd to me. As for an analysis, while I am straddling the fence right now, if it were shown that the ink has been on the paper since 1911, I'd be more inclined to go with legit. The signature is not in the style of Katie's, and who knows what exemplar existed in 1911 for the photographer to copy.

Great summary. The only quibble I would have is with the above, and it's similar to the argument around establishing card values from individual sales. This only establishes the acceptance of the item among the number of parties bidding on the item (at most), and the last 2 bidders (at least). Both/all could totally disagree with the 'eyes of the collecting community' as a whole. But I totally agree with the gist of what you are saying. There are at least 2 parties that strongly believe this to be authentic (for whatever reasons), otherwise the price wouldn't have been what it was.

I entirely understand your concern/issue, and don't disagree at all. What's the old saying though, "Money talks, and BS walks!". You can still have a lot of people who do not believe it is real, but even so, they now know that at least a few people in the hobby do feel it is real and will pay big bucks for it. So real or not, everyone knows this unique item is worth some serious money, and to me, that shows the acceptance by the hobby community that is a real collectible item. This item has a back story and provenance all its own, and that is a big reason why it is being accepted by at least some portion of the hobby. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but I think you have to accept it.

Suppose the winner and higher bidders were unaware of the controversy, or chose to believe PSA and JSA. How does that show acceptance by the community as a whole? Your reasoning sounds circular, it sold for a lot of money, therefore it's accepted.

The modern version of the Hobby is that slabs and slips mean more to collector-investors than what’s inside the slab.

Similarly, the provenance associated with authenticity is now secondary to the “provenance” of a high publicity sale. There is a critical mass of wealthy collector-investors who will care much less about whether this item was actually signed by Joe Jackson and more about the fact that this is THE photo that sold for $1.4 million.

Some of you maybe saw that a doodle of an elephant from Gary V got slabbed by PSA and sold for $400,000. Laugh all you like, but this is today’s Hobby. We may make fun of the collectors paying six figures when the names aren’t Ruth, Cobb, or Shoeless Joe, but I suspect the “empathetic elephant NFT” and Jasson Dominguez 1/1 buyers have much more in common with many of us than we’d like to believe.

+1

You and I are on the same page. We may not like what others are accepting, but we have to live with it whether we like it or not.

I think Bitcoin is tantamount to a Ponzi scheme, and NFTs are a joke. But guess what, even though I don't care for either of them, I have to accept that others do and accept that they are considered part of our world now.

I doubt the winner or serious under bidder(s) did extensive research (or what some would call groupthink, sheep-like analysis) but I could be wrong. As has been written here over and over, the label is everything. There will always be a buyer for this Jax photo given the authentication associated with it. No longer matters what it is only what it says it is.

Right, we don't know if the buyer was a sophisticated collector who did his own research and assessment, or someone who just relied on the authentications and thought it would be a cool thing to own and/or a good investment.

Well......yeah!

Peter, take a look at what Jason.1969 said in his post, and my response to that. I'm not saying I agree and accept that the Jackson autograph is legit, but because others do, I have to accept that that signed photo is worth serious money.

Put it this way. Now that you know that at least two people feel this item is worth over $1M, what if hypothetically speaking, you lucked out and somehow you could acquire this photo for $500K right now, knowing there are at least two people out there that would give over $1M for it tomorrow then. Are you telling me that even though you may not believe that autograph is real, that you still wouldn't pull the trigger and acquire it for $500K today so you could resell it and double your money tomorrow? You know you would. I would. Heck, anyone with half a brain would. And that is what I mean by it now being accepted in the hobby as having a significant value, regardless of whether or not you believe Joe Jackson actually signed the photo.

And the whole community doesn't have to agree to make it acceptable. Just think of the vast number of "normal" people out there in society who view us baseball card collecting nerds as complete idiots because we spend so much time and money acquiring little pieces of cardboard that mean virtually nothing to them. But then what happens to one of these "normal" people if say an elderly relative passes away, and while going through their belongings they come across some Old Judge cards, including a Delahanty HOFer card. Even though they couldn't care less about these cards and have no use or desire to keep them, they are aware that card collectors pay good money for old cards sometimes, and accept that these cards are collectible and definitely worth something. So when they see a sign for a card show at a local Holiday Inn, they grab the OJs they found and head up there with their spouse, where they eventually run into me through an acquaintance because no one else at the show knew a damn thing about OJs, including the local rep handling the REA table.

Anyway, helped them to realize what they had, and got the REA rep to call and get them a huge reduction on the seller's commission before they consigned the OJs to them. Bottom line was, they had no use or desire for the cards themselves, but accepted that these OJ cards were valuable because others would pay good money for them, and didn't just throw them out. People in the hobby who don't believe the Jackson auto is legit are going to be like the couple that found the OJ cards. They may not feel the item is worth anything to them personally, but because they know it is valued by others, they'll accept that and treat it like the valuable collectible that it actually is.

Now if that is a circular argument, then I guess so be it.

Bob I get the point but it feels circular to me. It sold for a lot of money therefore it's worth a lot of money. The same thing happens when prices are driven up fraudulently, it increases the price of the next one because it alters perception of value. So what? Suppose tomorrow there was a well-publicized revelation that the ink was from 1980, or someone admitted to forging it. It wouldn't be worth shit. It's not like the Wagner which has value independent of whether it's trimmed or not because of its unique notoriety.

Sometimes I wonder how much of the price of 1952 Topps 311 comes from the belief, echoed often in the media, that it’s Mickey Mantle’s rookie card. I believe this is another example (besides the Jackson auto) where the less informed may drive prices more than the better informed.

It’s probably also the classic example of the circular reasoning in the Hobby. Have talked to many collectors who collect Mantle “because his cards are the most expensive.” And needless to say they’ve done well for themselves, at least on paper.

As Wallace Stevens put it,

What we said of it became
A part of what it is.

There is doubtless an Emperor's New Clothes aspect to the hobby.

Peter,

Agree with you, but in this case it is a unique item so I don't think we have to worry about the shill bidding angle to manipulate the price. We're not going to see 5 more signed copies of the exact same picture suddenly turning up in various auctions over the next few months. (At least I pray we don't.)

You're also correct about the hit to it's value if it suddenly turned out it could be proven the signature was not legit after all. But this item already underwent a lot of scrutiny and exposure when it ended up on the Strange Inheritance cable show and then was initially sold at auction back in 2015. I have to believe that if anyone from either side of the argument had found any factual new evidence since that initial sale that could definitively prove their point, one way or another, that the signature was fake or real, that they would have jumped at the opportunity to come forward and show the other side up. In this particular instance we have multiple "experts" on either side of the argument. And if there's one thing an "expert" enjoys, it is to be proven right over someone else so people will continue to look at and come to them, as the "expert".

So I don't think there is suddenly going to be any new evidence coming forward, and therefore, this recent sale at $1.4M is going to be viewed and considered as a legit sale and value by the hobby community. Now does it mean the item is actually worth the price paid for it....who knows. We'll just have to wait and see if at some point in the near future the new owner puts it back up for sale by auction, and see how much it goes for then versus what was just paid for it. But for now, circular argument or not, I think the hobby is going to have to accept that there is a new item that just got added to the short list of baseball collectibles worth over $1M. You don't have to believe the autograph is legitimate, but just know that the item is worth a lot!

I would not buy something I believed to be fake for the sole purpose of flipping it to someone who didn't know better.

From there, it's just a short trip to altering and faking things.

But in this instance no one knows for certain if it is or isn't real, and likely never will. People just have to decide what they think for themselves then. And if you are on the side it is not real, and therefore don't want to have anything to do with it, that is perfectly fine and your prerogative. Trust me, there will be plenty of other people more than happy to step in and deal with this autographed photo.

Most people don't have the time required, or even the interest, to educate themselves on how to identify a forged signature. And even if they did, they probably wouldn't be very good at it. But there's a strong desire from collectors and the hobby at large to know if a signature is authentic or not. So the hobby lets the free market decide who is most qualified to render an opinion, and they vote with their dollars. Like it or not, the hobby has chosen PSA & JSA as the experts whose opinions matter most. If one of them says it's good, that's enough for the hobby at large to accept it. If both say it's authentic, then that's about as good as a buyer can hope for in this market.

The idea that prices might suffer if the buyers only knew about the "controversy" is laughable. There is no controversy from the market's perspective. Serious bidders on this photo do not care one bit what a small gaggle of internet trolls thinks about the authenticity of this photo. They only care what PSA & JSA have to say about it. Most buyers who are paying 7 figures for something like this aren't idiots. They are fully aware that the experts aren't infallible. They realize there exists at least some possibility of them being wrong. But it doesn't matter. Once that photo gets the stamp of approval from the hobby's chosen experts, it immediately has maximal market value. It is what it is. But nobody bidding on this stuff actually cares one bit what any of us think. Our opinions don't matter (and yes, I'm including myself in that statement). They view these posts the same way they view random people on Twitter arguing about politics and pop culture.

You are a bit late to the game but congrats to you, personally, for at least getting here. Even a tad less anger...gotta keep working on that one. :D I think many of us said DAYS ago that the only opinion that matters belongs to the company on the label.

I think if ya ask the small gaggle of internet troll groupthink if they care if the bidders or buyers of items like this care about what they think they will let you know they care very little.

Your last 10 posts have all either quoted me or been in reference to me. All of your activity here in the past week. And if you look even further back, still the vast majority of your posts are again either quoting me or in reference to me. Yet earlier, you said you don't read my posts and you just skip over them. Some might say that amounts to an infatuation.

That would be the reason why you wouldn't issue an LOA for something.

There would be very, very few authenticated autos out there if this were the criteria…which by the way I fully support. If you don’t know, just say you don’t know.

For game used bats, don't they assign a grade based on probability it is what it purports to be? Why not something similar for autographs?

The PSA/DNA grading standards for professional model bats are best described in the following manner:

On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being best, what is the degree of likelihood that the player in question actually used the professional model bat. After determining that the particular bat is indeed authentic, our experts then consider a host of factors in evaluating the quality of a professional model bat. The core of the grading criteria is based on the strength or weakness of player use characteristics and/or the documentation that accompanies the bat .

Or a letter of opinion, where you write about your opinion.

It makes sense with GU bats to have such a grading scale, because there are degrees of player use. For starters, a bat can match factory shipping records (model and date of labeling period matching the H&B records for a specific player) but have no evidence of game use. Or, it can have no use but the player may have taped the handle or written his uniform number on the knob. This is known as "game ready."

It was common for players to use each others' bats. I've owned several bats that were ordered by one player, but clearly used by another. For example, the markings Bob Allison put on the knob of his bats was highly distinctive - his number and bat weight inside of parenthesis. I once owned a bat ordered by Vic Power, with Power's signature name on the barrel, and Allison's knob writing and Allison's typical pine tar application on the handle.

I once had a Johnny Bench bat that was ordered by him, matched factory records, had his number on the knob in his distinctive style, genuine in every respect, but PSA/DNA only graded it an 8 because there weren't enough ball and stitch marks. Not enough use. I also had a 1964 Frank Robinson bat, matched factory records, had his number on the knob, heavy use, genuine all the way, but the handle had been cracked and tape repared, and there were small scratches on the barrel. It was determined the bat had been used after being cracked, probably by kids, where it got scuffed up a bit. It graded a 6.5.

Then there are "team index" bats, which were ordered by the teams for general use by any player. Sometimes a player would claim one of these, put his number on the knob, and use it regularly. So the bat might have the name of a star player on the barrel, but evident use by another player.

And so on. A scale from 1 to 10 can be constructed with actual scenarios that have been encountered for each of those grades. I have always believed there should've been 2 grades given - one for authenticity (did it belong to the player) and one for game usage/condition. Instead, those 2 elements are combined into one number.

Anyway, my point is, with GU bats (and to a lesser degree, GU jerseys) there are degrees that are real and legitimate. These degrees exist with the item itself. With an autograph, it is either authentic or it isn't. There might be degrees with condition, like fading and so on, but are no degrees with the item's authenticity.

If you put a scale on the authenticity of an autograph, what you are actually doing is simply creating a fudge factor for the authenticator. In other words, it would be a grade not of the item, but of the grader's skill/confidence level.

I appreciate those examples and their nuances, yet the inquiry as framed by PSA itself seems binary: did the player use the bat in a game or not? And the grade captures the degree of likelihood.

Attached is the letter on the Frank.

Model, weight, and length match H&B factory records and are specific to 1964. The model number was not used for pro stock. Frank's number, heavily faded, is on the knob, the barrel and handle are scored, there is some pine tar, and many ball marks and barrel checking.

Conclusion: "After a thorough examination of this Frank Robinson professional model bat and its player use characteristics, it is our opinion the bat is authentic, and was game used by Robinson during the referenced labeling period. The bat exhibits heavy use and possesses identifiable player use characteristics."

With all this, we should be looking at a pretty nice grade, right? But then.....

Comments: "Mention must be made to the condition of the barrel of this Frank Robinson professional model bat. The numerous abrasions and scuffing indicate the bat was used after it was cracked by Robinson."

And with that, it's bumped down to 6.5 based on condition issues.

The problem is that most people don't think probabilistically. They want a thumbs up or a thumbs down. They can't wrap their heads around the confusion matrix output that yields an 83% probability of a signature being authentic. The authenticator can make two different types of errors: they can reject a valid signature, and they can authenticate a forged one. But there's a trade off between these, and where you choose to operate on the ROC curve has consequences in either direction that increase or decrease the likelihood of getting it wrong one way or the other. The truth is, even the best of the best authenticators would be expected to make mistakes at a rate that almost no one in this hobby would find acceptable unless they were a mathematician or a statistician who knows what sort of outcomes to expect and who knows how to see the world through the lens of probability. If I were to say that I would expect the best experts in the world to be wrong something like 15% of the time, most people would probably tell me I'm an idiot, but the ones who don't call me an idiot would almost certainly tell me I'm an idiot when I tell them that they'd probably be wrong something like 30 to 40% of the time. But that's the ballpark of what I would expect to see if we were to set up a test with a sample set of signatures using a mix of authentic and forged examples with no provenance to accompany them. It's just not something that humans are going to be "good" at no matter how much one studies it. This is why provenance is so important. It can drastically increase the likelihood of authenticity.

Imagine if every LOA or COA came with the truth printed on it. "JSA is 91% confident that this baseball has been signed by Mickey Mantle", or "PSA/DNA estimates that there is a 74% probability that this photo has been signed by Willie Mays. However, this does not meet our confidence threshold of 85%, so we are unable to authenticate it at this time." Nobody would pay for their service if this was the end product. So they just give us the thumbs up or thumbs down instead. But the reality is, they're going to get this stuff wrong far more often than most people would expect, and certainly more often than they would be comfortable with if they knew the truth. But the reality is, PSA and JSA are both probably a hell of lot better at it than any of us are.

Game Used grades aren't entirely about game use. There are deductions for other aspects. Kind of a strange brew.

"Imagine if every LOA or COA came with the truth printed on it."

I think you unintentionally said a mouthful there.

It certainly opens up a can of worms, although I'd say my phrasing was intentional. Perhaps the difference from how I see things and how others might view this though would be that I would be ok with the fact that if I had 100 autographed pieces of memorabilia in my collection which required a third-party authentication for them to have any value, then I'd be ok with knowing that ~10 to 15 of them were actually fake (even if I didn't know which ones), whereas if someone else were to learn this about their collection, it might boil their blood. I think I just have a more realistic expectation of what sort of standards the experts can/should be held to than the general public. It seems that most collectors want them to be nearly infallible. I think they're going to make A LOT of mistakes. But I don't think we can expect them to do better. Others will disagree. It is what it is.

I think this is a subset of a more general concept that is applicable well beyond autograph authentication. The problem is that most people don't think probabilistically. They want someone to tell them the answer.

The Bottom Line is back both in 2015 and present day many people have questions about the autograph and if it is legit or not.

Regardless of the questions, the doubts, etc
Regardless of its trail of "documentation" and the Auction Houses it sold thru

The reality is that it sold for what it sold for and it is not considered the most valuable autographed photo.

Someone paid big money in 2015 and someone paid bigger money in 2021

My guess when it sells again in the future it will sell for big money..

Hopefully it would be nice in the future it can be confirmed either way.

But until then the Debate Goes on

Sounds about right to me. It’s more or less like Angel Hernandez or Laz Diaz calling balls and strikes. The only thing I would question is whether anyone involved in authenticating the Jackson deserves the label “best expert in the world.”

Nice. :D:D

In other fields a cert stating "we decline to render an opinion" does occasionally happen especially on very rare items.

And the experts when confronted with evidence showing that an earlier opinion was wrong will correct the opinion.
A writeup of an item accepted as genuine since at least the 1950's.
https://www.rfrajola.com/opinions/klep.htm

And the auction listing that prompted the examination. (Lot 68)
https://siegelauctions.com/lots.php?...r+8-10%2C+1998

Yes, experts will make mistakes, but real experts fix them when they're wrong. And are wrong a lot less than PSA etc on expensive items.

For some reason our hobby generally accepts an opinion from some experts as written in stone, and the companies do the same.
I'm unsure about the Jackson photo, but am inclined to think it's not his signature.
For a million plus, I'd want way more convincing than "well, PSA says so" And to be entirely clear, I believe the hobby in general deserves better than that.

It says that a collector should be knowledgeable about what they collect, and not rely only on someone else's opinion.

If someone owns 100 pieces and 10-15 percent of them are fake, that's a problem.

As these expensive items migrate from collectibles to investments, the focus migrates from the item itself to the flip/certification. IMO.

They're investing in the "market value"

The problem is when authentication and grading companies "financially insure" the items.

They are giving their opinions, and the way to corrupt the process, and that has corrupted the process, when they are "financially backing the items." The opinion, and reluctance to correct the opinion, due to $$ considerations says the system is corrupt and bad.

That the T206 Wagner still has a PSA 8 label is all you have to know. Everyone knows it's not a PSA 8-- Mastro said that he himself trimmed it, and that card is trimmed has been the hobby's worst kept secret for years. The "opinion" is not about facts or accuracy or truth, it's about money.

However, the grading and authentication companies explicitly state that they are only giving imperfect and fallible opinions. If buyers and sellers treat an opinion as more than that that's the buyers' and sellers' fault. Collectors can't logically and with straight faces treat grades as 'written in stone' while resubmitting cards to get different grades.

I suspect there is also an unconscious (at least) bias when authenticating or grading an item for a major client, in this case Heritage, who stands to make a lot of money if the item is deemed good or the cards grade high. The publicity isn't so bad for the authenticator either. I've seen/heard lots of anecdotal evidence over the years that convinces me all submitters are not treated the same. And yes, I understand the limitations of anecdotal evidence blah blah.

That is so groupthink of you. Show proof or do not post. :D

The "big customer" politics happens in other fields, but in slightly different ways.

In another hobby I have a variety that's a pretty big deal. If I got a cert, it would as far as I know be only the second one certified.
BUT....

The first was found by a very well connected very well known collector. His got a certificate, and ones sent in after were declined. Not because they weren't real, but because he convinced the experts (He was also an expert) That ones that didn't closely match his couldn't be true double impressions.

When I sent scans of mine to another collector who wrote a monograph on plate varieties and really knows the printing end of things he said it was totally legit, but like his would never get a cert because it didn't exactly match the first one. And indicated that he'd seen something like 4-5 of them and all had been rejected.
He also gave me the technical reasons why it shouldn't match. (Probably way too boring for here)

So the real/not real wasn't influenced for his, and there was no grading at the time. But he did influence other peoples getting certified so that his remained unique.

I might actually give it a try at some point, because he died a few years ago.

posting in this old topic as I am reading through Joe Jackson's 1924 civil trial transcript and one of the first topics they press an issue on is if Jackson could read or write. It was agreed he could only sign his name...however...

it is brought up that Jackson first met Harry Grabiner in 1915 when the White Sox obtained Jackson from the Indians and Granbiner wanted him to sign the player transfer document and Jackson told him he couldnt, at that time he could not sign his name and told him his wife would have to sign it.

If this is true then this photograph was not signed by Jackson

"Q: When did you learn to write your name, Mr. Jackson, about?
A: After I went to Chicago."

Case closed

Joe Jackson v Chicago American League Baseball Club, page 30