I'm going to differ in my opinion, as I believe it to be the genuine article. Autographs can tend to evolve somewhat with a person's age. The signature on the black & white photo matches up very well with the contract Joe signed in 1920, according to Steve Grad in the film clip on this subject (see the link on Post #4), and I don't disagree. The Shoeless Joe Museum appears to be basing their opinion on the comparison between the photo signature and Joe's signature on his will in 1951. Even comparing those two signatures, I can see a strong resemblance in the way he signed "Joe" and the first four letters in his last name as well. There only seems to be a significant difference in the "son" portion of the signature, as Joe just went with squiggly lines on his will rather than an attempt at getting every letter right like he did on his contract and on the signed photo. In 30 years, and illiterate person could easily get tired of trying to get every letter right and just go with squiggles instead. Ascertaining the authenticity of an autograph is not a complete science, and there is enough consistency for me to believe it is genuine.

I didn't read this before posting my opinion. However, if this is true, how can the similarity between the photo signature and the 1920 contract signature (see Post #4) be explained? Is it possible that Joe may have signed that photo later than 1911 and even later than 1915 as well?

He literally testified that he could not write his name until 1915...this photo predates that...this was written by the photographer most likely

This thread is many years old and many pages long. If I'm repeating myself from so long ago, that's fine.

I have never cared for the autograph on the Jackson photo in question.

After examining many signed photos from that album, it appeared to me that it was a very mixed bag of genuine autographs along with several that were not, in my opinion, signed by the players. It has been so many years since I first viewed this material that the names of any particular players whose autographs were not genuine are currently escaping me, but I have vague recollections that the issues were not just Jackson and really obscure players, but maybe even an instance or two of more common autographs that were signed by someone else. There were so many obscurities in this assemblage; some appearing genuine, others not so much. That album, in its entirety, was not free of issues. I will say that my opinions at the time were only based on viewing scans of the material.

But there's a LOA for the Jackson, so who cares what me or anyone else thinks? /s

The idea that someone who could barely write their name will have an identifiable signature is pretty laughable to me. It's going to look slow and halting and not consistent at all. All things that get normal autographs disqualified almost immediately.

If someone didn't yet know how to sign their name, how is it that somebody else signing on their behalf would so closely mirror a signature that the person in question hadn't even devised? It's too ridiculous to even consider. There's something else at play here.

The most generous theory would be that yes, Jackson signed the photo sometime later on, then someone else added the location and (approximate) date of when and where it was originally taken.

Again, I'll add the caveat that I have only examined high res scans of the piece. Going solely from that, I also dislike what appears to be zero aging to the ink, or how the ink sits on the photo.

Sure, no one has ever fudged the truth in a trial, especially one they have a stake in the outcome. :rolleyes:

I don't think this testimony is as bullet proof as you think it is.

Ok thats possible, now give a reason to lie about that as it relates to his civil suit. Have you read the 1924 testimony?

It is also possible for people to tell the truth.

Oh for sure. I'm just saying, the testimony isn't definitive proof regarding this auto. It could just as easily be false as it could be true. His literacy had been a well-worn argument even back then (as you can tell by the mere fact that the testimony was elicited by the lawyers at all). It's entirely possible that whole angle was exaggerated in the courts and the media for obvious reasons. You really can't think of any reason he might want to play up his illiteracy?

Well that is also a difficult question:

Through anecdotes of Jackson it appears he was embarrassed about his illiteracy and resented the "southern rube" stereotype and would do things like pretend to read a menu when out eating with teammates and just order what someone else ordered. Based on those I would say it was an issue he avoided and tried to hide. So he wouldnt want to highlight it let alone play it up.

However, I think his lawyers were trying to establish it in the civil trial to show the White Sox and particularly Harry Grabiner took advantage of him when he signed his contract in 1920. I have not gotten through the whole civil trial transcripts yet so dont know yet if this was brought up in cross. Even so given this situation in 1920 it had more to do with his inability to read and not sign his name...so I dont know why they would want to establish when he could sign his name other than it just happened to come up in the questioning related to his literacy.

I do have one document "signed" by Jackson dated Jan 1915...which is before he went to the White Sox by a few months...so it is either his signature was added by a forger (possible as it is in a different color ink), he was mistaken in 1924 recalling when he learned to sign his name by a few month (honest minor mistake) or he was lying for some reason which I cant come up with a reason why he would lie about it (other things in his case you could argue he had good reason to lie about but I dont see why he would lie about this).

It seem logical to believe he was telling the truth or trying to and was off by a few months. Or maybe was advised by his lawyers to answer "after I got to Chicago" to simplify it bc he couldnt remember exactly.

I get it. However, just because the photo predates the time he could sign his name doesn't mean he couldn't have signed the photo later as I have speculated. The auto is too close of a match to the one on his 1920 contract in my opinion for it to have been signed by another party.

I would (and have in this thread) disagreed in that it doesn't match his signature IMO. The first major hurdle is that it is a huge signature, Jackson signed very small, taking up very little space. That alone is very inconsistent with Jackson's signature.

It is most likely a facsimile signature written on it by the photographer, which was very common for photographers to do at that time

To accept the signature as real you have to accept multiple things inconsistent with the historical facts related to Jackson.

1. He signed a photograph for someone... all examples of signed photographs later in life were signed by his wife...this would be the only time he ever did it

2. He either signed I before he testified he was able too sign his name (lied in court), or signed it some time after he left Cleveland (how and why would that happen)

3. This one time he did sign it...after he wasnt in Cleveland and the only time he ever signed a photograph which was what his wife did for him...he decided to sign a great big signature inconsistent from any other signature of his that we know of.

That isnt getting into the conjecture on if the signature matches or not (which is debatable I will say as it is not an exact science)...you have to take at least 3 leaps of faith that contradict the historical record the best we understand it now about Joe Jackson. Also Cleveland is signed on it too and he didnt write that...which matches his name...so two different people wrote on it but looks the same...

Or is it more likely that it is a photographers facsimile, typical of the time....which explains why it is a large signature and why Cleveland is on it...tthe same person wrote all of it who was not Joe Jackson

I am not a prewar collector nor an autograph collector. That said, this is the most logical take I have seen.
I believe the auto is authentic but was not acquired in 1911.

Wasn’t the entire collection this came from 1911 and many were dated as that