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

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