PAWN STARS Shoeless Joe Jackson signed book...
 

I just heard about the goof on pawn stars last night. There was a book that a guy had for sale that was signed by Shoeless Joe Jackson. It had a COA from Herman Darvick. Herman is a person that sold something signed by shoeless joe for 23 grand a few years ago. Long story short...the book was a fake and the Pawn Stars are out 13 GRAND on the item.

To make matters worse, they sent the book to PSA/DNA and it came back with a rejection letter saying that the book showed signs of being traced.

How can such a self appointed expert make such a huge mistake??? And he works for PSA??? What about other items with his COA now?

It can be seen here: http://www.history.com/shows/pawn-st...say-it-aint-so


watch the whole thing as this goes on for the whole show.

i saw the show. i was excited at first, because at quick glance i thought it was legit. i was SUPER shocked Rick didn't bring in an expert first, almost seemed staged to create "good" TV, he never screws up that bad, and not having someone look at it first was inexcusable.

The question I have for PSA and their so-called experts is this: Has anyone there given any thought to the fact that the same characteristics that apply to tracing (i.e., pressure points, delays, etc., etc......), pretty much apply to someone such as Joe Jackson who would have been "drawing" his name based on a pattern taught him by his wife. I interviewed Eugene Estes (and that name means little to history, except that he witnessed Joe signing his Will). Mr. Estes told me that Joe struggled to sign his name, that he practiced on the back on an envelope three times before setting pen to paper on the Will. Mr. Estes said Joe stopped several times during the signing, which in my opinion would make it looked "traced". Now, I am not saying PSA got it wrong, but there is enough reasonable doubt in my mind that if I were Rick Harrison, I'd have it forensically tested for period ink and that the ink had been on the page for a period of between 1947 (when the book was published) and December 5, 1951 (The date Joe Jackson ceased to be a living entity). The signature on the book looks different than the one that appears on his will, but the one on his will appears different that the one that appears on his 1941 mortgage note and that one appears different that the one on his 1949 drivers license. In other words.....all his signatures different somewhat, since he was just tracing a pattern taught to him by his wife Katie. I sent Rick Harrison an email and told him as much. But I do agree that the piece appeared to be staged for TV....as Rick has almost always went to one of his "experts" when he was about to lay out that much cash for something.

Mike Nola
Official Historian
The Shoeless Joe Jackson Virtual Hall of Fame Web Site
http://www.blackbetsy.com/
Home of the Joe Jackson model Louisville Slugger baseball bat offer.
The voice said "Build it and they will come".........and they have!!!!!

all good points. i also found it funny when his expert (after he purchased it) said it looks like it was signed "slowly"...NO SH*T! it was (if truly signed by Joe's hand) signed by an illiterate person who can't write, so of course it was executed slowly.

Very well written Blackbetsy

It looks like the LOA was dated in 1994. I think Herman Munster should comment about it or make a retraction that he made a mistake in 1994...or???

It's all for show, no way he really bought it before getting it checked out. He's not wanting to blow $13k. Chumly might though.

In that scenario, why would the 'e' in Joe have been erased and redrawn? Why would it be smooth flowing, relative to known sigs? Why would he sign a BOOK (that was already signed by his wife on his behalf), when he was so apprehensive to sign his MORTGAGE and WILL?

I find it hard to believe that most of you don't know that American Pickers, Pawn Stars, Storage Units show and the such are staged. If they didn't f up once in a while you might belive they aren't true.

A friend in central PA who was on Pickers a year or so ago, said they spent 3 days getting things right at his house just to buy one gun

Excellent point, Jim.

Discussing why certain things do or don't happen on Pawn Stars is like debating why Norm always sat at the end of the bar on Cheers or why Richie couldn't get a date for the prom on Happy Days.

Why? Because that's the way the scripts are written.

The american pickers were just in my town last week.

I was at the auction where that Joe Jackson was sold.
It was a cut signature.
I would not have bid on it due to my aversion to cuts that I have not cut up myself and because I was never sure if he could really sign.
Herman Darvick is now an expert with JSA.

Staged
 

Agreed-remeber it's TV. My brother in law occasionally films reality shows for his co. based out of Philly. The producers search the area for the right locale and then truck the items in for staging(Pickers, Storage Wars, etc.)....

so the guy had it authenticated 18 years ago and didnt do reasearch on the value until now? Not sure about this whole story on the seller.

The story seems fakey on many levels (not mentioning the scripted lines). Including offering $13,000 for something where the offerer says he doesn't know whether or not it's real. Don't believe it.

As noted, the guy having had the book authenticated 18 years ago but not realizing a Joe Jackson signature is rare and valuable seems, shall we say, unlikely.

I like how he casually flips back and forth (and carries around town) with his bare hands a Joe Jackson signed book. Maybe they were using a Daniel Steele paperback as a prop in those scenes.

But it's when he swats the fly with the book and cleans the book in the dishwasher, that's when credibility is finally lost.

However, the autograph exert was pretty cute, so everything evens out.

Moral of the story: Only use cute authenticators.

I know all shows are staged, but was hoping at least a little part of American Pickers was real but guess not.

So when John Mackey signed autographs for the last 5-10 years of his life, his wife would have her hand on his and move it to form the letters because HE forgot how to look at his name and sign it and how to follow things. So by her moving his hand around, does it still make it a JOHN MACKEY autograph?

This is a man who goes around saying he is the ONLY person alive that can authenticate a shoeless joe jackson autograph and to have done it

http://walkersresearch.com/profilePa...100002364.html

How can this person be so wrong?

PSA, who the book was sent to says the autograph looks to be traced, and even erased and re-written...

HOW CAN A EXPERT miss this?

Not long ago, John Rezinkoff says a AL RUDDY is a AL PACINO on the same show, and now, his co-worker mistakes a Shoeless Joe?

I think Joe Jackson's autograph is common and not rare.

http://www.jj-archive.net/albums/CAim_303.jpg

:eek:

0 for 2 on pawn stars. but they are the WORLDS experts so there you have it.

To me, this is a case of someone getting their hands on a joe jackson signature, selling it and getting some press for it, and then thinking they are some sort of a joe jackson expert.

Darvick sold that first jackson signature at his own auction in very early 90's and leland's bought it. lelands flipped it almost instantly, ironically to the underbidder that lost out. the guy must have had second thoughts and really wanted it and made a trade with leland's and ended up with the jackson signature.

darvick must have then thought he is a jackson autograph expert now and a couple years later, authenticated this miracle.

I think he got cocky and someone brought a supposed jackson signature to the guy who first authenticated and sold jackson's sig believing he must be the go to guy on jackson and how could darvick say "no, i am not a jackson expert".

Of course he had to say yes to keep his jackson reputation intact, plus i believe that he believed he was a jackson expert to boot and that is courting and tempting fate and a recipe for a potential disaster.

remember, no one saw jackson sign it or not sign it and its people;s opinion.

but i find it interesting that the guy who used to be on staff at psa and is currently on staff at jsa is the second historical authenticator behind reznikoff, who is on staff at both, to go out of their specialty (pacino for reznikoff, and joe jackson for darvick) and authenticate something on the pawn stars show that people believe to be non-authentic. The pacino we know for a fact wasnt a pacino.

only to have psa itself call that jackson no good.

there are thousands of psa certs out there with darvicks name on the bottom and reznikoffs too. so are these guys good at what they do, or not?

everyone knows my answer to that.

Several years ago I talked at length with an older gentleman at an auction . He was on American Pickers in one of the earlier episodes. If any of you remember seeing the show he was the guy that had the general store and White Castle restaurant in his side yard. The pickers arrived at his place unannounced as they were given a tip from one of the locals that he might have some stuff for sale. The guy told me that the only thing that was staged was when he answered the front door because the first time that they knocked his wife answered. Other than that he said it was like the cameras weren't even there. He said that nothing at all was scripted. He regretted not selling more stuff but said they were great guys.

My family and I also visited their shop in Leclaire Iowa several years ago and talked to the girl that was working that day. Unfortunately it was Danielle's day off but this girl was just as nice. She said that when they're picking the cameras are always rolling but nothing is staged and the guys are just like they are on the show in real life.

Does that include "Sunny"? :D

+1 My thoughts exactly - when Rebecca told him it was fake, he should have been crapping his pants, but he's just not that good of an actor. Now the show will have more appeal because there's bigger risk involved. Before, it was high-wire with a safety net - now they've given the illusion that the safety net is gone.

Did I miss something here. Has there been talk of the "E" in Joe being erased and re-drawn? If so, I apologize I missed that. I sure didn't see it in the images sent to me of the book, does not appear to have been erased or anything of that nature. Again, I'm not saying it's a legitimate Joe Jackson signature (one actually signed by him), what I am saying is that the autograph is close enough to Joe's signature late in his life that I would at least have it forensically tested if I owned the book. No disrespect, but Rick's so called "book expert" used a signed baseball as her bell weather of all things Joe Jackson signed. If anyone here has tried to sign a baseball, it's a difficult proposition at best, let alone for someone who can't read or write. Sure it was shakey compared to the one of the book....two things in play here, one, Joe signed the ball early in his life and on a round surface to boot, two the book was signed on a flat surface, later in life after Jackson would have had more practice signing things. The ball was most likely signed in the presence of other players and Joe would have rushed that. The book on the other hand was probably signed at home with Katie's help. From the dozen or so folks that I have had conversations with over the years about asking Joe for an autograph, he always told them to leave the item with him (saying he was too busy to sign at the moment) and to come back tomorrow and pick the item up. Most of these things (mostly balls) where autographed at home by Katie that night and Joe took them back to the liquor store the next day for the person to pick up. The book being a flat item and depending on who it was for, Joe may have signed the item himself if it was for a close friend or as a favor to a friend...who knows....I'm making up scenarios here, but you get my drift, there is enough reasonable doubt in my mind and from what I am seeing in the images I have been sent....that if I owned the book.....I'd be forensically testing it to rule out that part of it. For me, this book is just another mystery about Joe Jackson that we will probably never know the truth about. But it's fun trying to figure it out.

Mike
Official Historian
The Shoeless Joe Jackson Virtual Hall of Fame Web Site
http://www.blackbetsy.com/
Home of the Joe Jackson model Louisville Slugger baseball bat offer.
The voice said "Build it and they will come".........and they have!!!!!

Even if you got it tested forensically, my understanding is that the forgers used period ink on higher end items. So the ink would match up...correct?

Jeff

It came up when they were reading the letter from PSA/DNA on the episode.

Cheers was the first smoke-free bar, 20 years before it became the law. What a joke.


Also why was a grown man like Fonz always hanging out in the men's room with teenage schoolboys? If that was today there'd be rumours galore about what was going on in there, and probably a sting operation.

Part of it is real. They really do go freestyle. They just spend a few hours reshooting the chance meeting after they dig around. I don't work on that show but I've seen raw takes.

Edit: I noticed Dell Webb already answered this. You can't say the same thing about the pawn stars though :)

"It's a dog eat dog world and I'm wearing milkbone underwear" -- Norm

My take on "Porn Stars":

Know a rather sleazy dealer who went on the show with a rare Black civil rights figure's letter. Pre-taping, they took the letter from him, gave it to a shill who walked in with it, he authenticated it and valued it, and (I presume), they bought it. I got this right from the (jackass's) mouth.

My opinion: whole damn show is a rigged set-up, from the retreads who walk in, to the experts, to the deals negotiated. The show's worth millions so why take chances? BTW - love the old man, who know's it's all BS. Hate the lead guy, who's bogus laugh makes me wretch.

Then don't watch it. I know some of it, maybe a lot, is staged, but I LOVE THE SHOW am very entertained by it. I do love the Old man too, but honestly, why wretch if you can avoid it?

Scott Roberts

Slight tangeant, but the g.f. moved a t.v. in to my place two years ago, after ten years without. I very reluctantly agreed to this. I started off just watching sports, then every now and then watching something else, mostly out of boredom or morbid curiosity (Swamp People, Pawn Stars, Pickers, etc.).

The only way to avoid seeing this stuff is to get rid of your television. Almost ANY book is better. You are completely right - "why wretch if you can avoid it."

I watch strictly for the 'boob shots'. I believe the editor caught hell last year, but they're back this year!:)

Anyone that would take an item to a Pawn Shop looking for anything more than some fast cash is a "boob" so you plenty of "boob shots"....:D:D:D

f.w.i.w. Looks like the Joe Jackson episode is going to show again tonight at 7:00pm central time (DirecTV ch 269).

The PERFECT reality show:

Guy owns a pawn shop with storage units in back that he repossesses every week. His house, next to an alligator-infested swamp in Wachascratchin, Louisiana, is infested with bees and raccoons, but they have a redneck exterminator at their service. The house is being redecorated for free by a gay, drag-queen small-town sheriff and his crazy wife who spend their weekends towing cars and chasing bail jumpers. The home-owner's daughter is an eight year old pageant queen who moonlights as a logger and their son, who is a hoarder, is a crabber in Alaska.

And no, I don't watch Porn Stars. There's too much other great TV to watch. See above.

the guys laugh makes me ill,,it sounds real phony.:mad: i like american pickers great t.v.

What, nobody in the family drives a truck across the Arctic in winter? :confused:
JimB

maybe this should go in the card section ;)
 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2012-Leaf-Po...item3a767ee510


Debating between going for this or a Goudy Ruth in Authentic condition....decisions decisions

Joe Jackson's signature is authentic
 

First of all, my opinion in 1994, and now, is that the Joe Jackson signature is authentic. The "Shoeless Joe Jackson" written on the lower portion of the page was written by the collector to identify who signed it. It was not signed by Mrs. Jackson. It is not in her handwriting and when she signed her husband's name she would sign "Joe Jackson," no "Shoeless." And why didn't Rick call me? I always have my contact info on my COAs. Why didn't he contact an autograph expert? And why not before he pays the guy $13,000? He's contacted his autograph experts for much, much less value. He said he didn't want to lose this guy. He didn't even ask him if he could verify the authenticity of the signature,. He did, however, say that he relied on my COA. Thanks you for that, Rick. But then he goes to Rebecca his book expert at Bauman's Books and asks her about the authenticity of the Joe Jackson autograph. By the way, I have been asked for my opinion about the authenticity of autographs in books numerous times by Bauman Books (not the Las Vegas branch, the main store). Also: You should know by now, that Mike Frost is a habitual liar. I have known him for over 20 years. I did not renew my three year contract with PSA/DNA 3 1/2 years ago, in February 2009, because of exactly what happened here. There were too many mistakes on letters from PSA/DNA with my signature among the authenticators' signatures on the bottom, and that included letters where they said the autograph passed certification. They don't even say who decided it hadn't passed certification. It's one of the group of about 10 names. I no longer wanted to be associated with PSA/DNA and asked that my name not be used on PSA/DNA letters immediately. The Joe Jackson cut signature I sold in 1990 for $23,100 at my public auction was removed from a legal document he signed in the 1930s. It was purchased by Leland's who promptly traded it to Barry Halper. In the signed book, why was the "e" erased and rewritten? Because Joe didn't like the "e" he had signed, erased it, and signed it again. A forger would have to be real dumb to erase a letter and rewrite it. Why was the pressure heavy? Because he hardly ever used a pen and wanted to make sure his signature looked good. I suggest you look at other comments on the authenticity of the Joe Jackson signed book on this site, especially the one on Page 1 from the Shoeless Joe Jackson Virtual Hall of Fame Web Site. Look at the signature on that website as well and compare it to the one in the book. His 1951 signature on his will is here: http://www.blackbetsy.com/jacksonWill.html If you'd like to contact me, my email address is hdarvick@yahoo.com

Mrs. Jackson NEVER signed "Shoeess Joe Jackson"
 

The book was not signed by his wife. The collector wrote "Shoeless Joe Jackson" to identify who signed it. When she signed her husband's autograph, she would sign "Joe Jackson," never adding "Shoeless." Besides, it is just not her handwriting. Jackson wanted his autograph to look good. That's why he practiced before he signed his will. He evidently screwed up on the "e" so he erased it and rewrote it. Do you really think a forger would be so dumb that he would erase a letter and rewrite it? hdarvick@yahoo.com

Herman, Thanks for responding. It is a rare opportunity for insight into an authentication.

I think we all agree, that on any purchase of such magnitude greater diligence is required. Rick, should have at least called you, googled you, (asked a guy on the street, for god's sake) rather than just saying "I never heard of this guy."

I have a question for you on your authentication of this item. how much did the story of who, why, and how this was signed weigh on your decision? I ask this in reference to the erasure, and as importantly, the Shoeless inscription.

Under what circumstances do you feel someone would feel the need to clarify a plainly obvious signature, especially on a book referencing that individual? As far as the erasure, are there other examples of such behavior? This would have had to have been witnessed, noted, and related to someone in order for it to be considered with great weight, would it not? From whom did you receive these bits of info?

I ask these as common sense (to me) issues that I would have asked the authenticator if I were in the position to purchase such a rare artifact.

Jim Marinari

PS. The intelligence or lack therof of forgers can be easily debated in another thread. I have seen a Gehrig signed in sharpie.

Mike, I assumed the "e" was erased and gone over because that's what PSA/DNA said. I do not remember any erasures when I authenticated the signature 18 1/2 years ago, but it was 18 1/2 years ago. In any event, I agree with you wholeheartedly that it should be brought to an autograph expert, especially one who has access to a Video Spectral Comparator used by handwriting experts to determine authenticity. --- Herman hdarvick@yahoo.com

Authentication
 

Jim, I listen to the stories but it doesn't carry any weight if I do not think the signature is authentic. If I think it may be real, the story might help. It would tell me where and when it was signed. I don't remember the story behind the book signing - it was 18 1/2 years ago. Here's an interesting experience I had about 6 or 7 years ago. I was working for an auction house as a writer and was given a Marilyn Monroe Productions check signed in New York in February 1954 (I forget the exact date) to catalogue. The signature looked good and it had passed certification that day by one of the major authenticators who was there that day certifying items in the auction. I'm pretty good at remembering dates. I knew that Marilyn Monroe had married Joe DiMaggio in January 1954. It didn't take long for me to discover that on the date of that check, Marilyn Monroe was in Japan on her honeymoon. Well, maybe she signed a bunch of checks before they left for Japan? Impossible, since Marilyn Monroe Productions was formed on January 1, 1955 (some books say December 31, 1954). My guess is that someone got some blank checks from her estate or her lawyer's estate, and forged Monroe's signature. There was even a light "bank" stamping on verso. It no longer mattered that the signature looked good. The date was the forger's downfall. I'm bringing this up for two reasons. 1. A lot of things go into authenticating, not just familiarity with a signature or handwriting, and 2. just because a major authenticating company passes or fails to pass certification, doesn't mean they're right. My advice is to buy from a reputable autograph dealer who stands by the authenticity of what he/she is selling. If there is ever any problem, the dealer will refund your money. If you buy from a dealer who has a third party COA, that dealer must still refund your money if there is a problem with authenticity. Third Party Authenticators do not issue refunds when their opinion proves to be wrong. Hope I've been helpful. --- Herman hdarvick@yahoo.com

You might be interested in buying one of the "Old Man" commemorative coins - actually, not coins but silver rounds - they're selling at the store.

http://gspawn.com/wp-content/uploads...91-300x294.jpg http://gspawn.com/wp-content/uploads...01-300x298.jpg

:eek:

Thanks a million for chiming in on the subject Herman. Yes, it was 18 1/2 years ago and I'm sure much has changed as well? I respect any man that stands behind his work and speaks freely about it on an open forum.

What your saying then, is that your opinion hasn't changed on the item in 18 1/2 years and I can appreciate that. This was authenticated before PSA & JSA so my question is this.....Are you still authenticating for either company and if you were, why did they not pass the item or did they come back to you for your opinion? Or, was it just they didn't want to go out on a limb on the item?

It's very refreshing to have you clear up what you remember 18 years ago. Even if it meant you changing your mind, I would have no problem with that either, due to the advancing technologies and information that may have been gathered since then.

IMHO, anyone to spend actual $$$$$money on an item like this in any setting needs his head examined. Thanks again.

everybody,

well, darvick works for jsa, so go buy it from rick for the 13,000 (he will be glad just to get his money back), and then send it to JSA for the cert as I am sure that Mr. Darvick's boss Mr. Spence will see it his way, then you have a very expensive autograph for only 13,000 dollars.

I love it how he says he quit psa due to the amount of mistakes they were making and then he joins who....jsa?

talk about out of the frying pan and into the fire. Reznikoff and Eaton work for both, wonder how that works? Can I work for pepsi and coke as a consultant at the same time?

Herman, much as you know I love and respect your talents, and regardless of whether the Jackson is "right" or "wrong", Travis is in a way correct. If we're going to have an impartial discussion, all the connections between owners, authenticators, employers, employees, consignors, and auctioneers should be known.

And I'll be the first to say I wouldn't know Joe Jackson from Joe Blow.

great scenario Travis, in a sickening kind of way:eek:

As far as the Coke & Pepsi analogy, consider this....
I am a consultant for 4 of the largest "personal care" manufacturers in the city. 3 of the 4 actually share property lines. :D they hate each other, fight over clients, fight over space, basically, fight over everything. I manage to keep them separate and do the best I can for each individual client. It helps keep their prices low, and enables me to service the crap out of them. That's why they turn to me as their expert, I think? It just occurred to me that I'm an "expert" at something :D

As far as PSA & JSA..... I really don't want my Company to have any other similarities.

Herman has access to the Reznikoff amazing techni-color dreamcoat machine otherwise known as a spectral comparator, maybe when Reznikoff is not busy running the Harry Truman ball through it, they could give this Joe Jackson signature a whirl.

I always imagine what someone who double dips with these companies would say if a friend asked them which company they should use. if i were psa, I would be mad if they suggested jsa to them, and vice versa.

Maybe that's why psa and jsa agree so much, if a george washington autograph is submitted to psa and gets reznikoff approved, then sending it to jsa for a second, independent opinion isn't going to do any good if the guy is reznikoff again.

And I don't understand how anyone who owns or works in a prominent position in an auction house like Eaton at RR or Gutierrez at Heritage should be able to be on an authentication team. It's like 2 wolves and a sheep voting to see what they should have for dinner!

Just goes to show "there's an ass for every seat":D:D:D

I would have used the P.T.Barnum analogy "There's a sucker born every minute" But what ever works for you works for me! ;););)

Small wonder why many of those "called out" on this board choose not to come on here to answer any allegations. Mr Darvick comes here, explains his position, and is set upon immediately. A subject was brought up, he answered it, if you have another question for him, ask it. Who he works for has nothing to do with it.

Who ANYONE works for is of course germane to the issue. Leaving Herman totally out of the present discussion, I'd certainly want to know if someone's opinion could be, intentionally or unintentionally tainted by their employment or affililiations.

I'm not sure Herman will clarify his answer to these questions, although I would be really interested in the answers. "I don't remember the story behind the book signing - it was 18 1/2 years ago." This would hold more weight with me if not for his definitive answers in his original post. It appears that he remembers the details quite clearly. His defense of his original OK seems to hinge on extraneous information from SOMEONE. If that someone was a party to the signing, it would be some nice corroboration to his finding. IF that is the case, why the generic LOA? Wouldn't it be prudent to note any provenance rather than "It looks good to me"?

On the face of it, it appears that 'legend' turned into 'fact'. None of this has any direct correlation to authenticity of the signature or not. However, the quick certainty with which several of these questions were answered (without attribution) makes me nervous.

At the risk of sounding wishy-washy, Mr. Deertick (a favorite of ours in CT!), but...an autograph has to stand on its own two legs regardless of the story that surrounds its past. I remember Charles Hamilton relating how he would get autographs "all gussied up" in fancy frames with tons of letters of provenance from Haile Selassie to General Lee, but the signature was a pig nonetheless.

When I get a piece to sell, I ignore all the provenance, framing, previous sales records and ESPECIALLY previous COA's and concentrate on the autograph itself. I'm guaranteeing the autograph alone - not all the (potentially) worthless window dressing that comes with it.

I agree! :) All the extras should support the conclusion, not prove it. But ignoring info (such as signed while on a deathbed) is ignoring info for you to make your decision an informed one, no?

.....

provenance only helps a fake autograph make it to being "real". everybody has a story and provenance stories are faked all the time.

people can look these authenticators right in the eye and lie like a rug.

that's why these bags of hair people sell with interesting and rock solid "provenance" turn out to not be a DNA match. it's all phony.

provenance is only needed to bump a fake autograph into the "real" category, if it is really real, you don't need a provenance story. it's nice but can't be relied on because people...

A. Lie
B. remember things incorrectly, especially if it happened a long time ago.
C. unknowingly lie / are duped by someone else.

I voluntarily authenticate for JSA. I hadn't seen the signed book, or a copy of the Joe Jackson signature in it, since 1994. I see no reason for me to change my mind. With the existence of the Foster + Freeman Video Spectral Comparator, I probably would want to examine the signature to possibly learn if it was signed between the book's publishing in 1947 and Joe Jackson's death in 1951, and not after I sold the first authentic Joe Jackson signature at auction in 1990 for $23,100.

Just curious, where did the first authentic Joe Jackson come from and any details about the signature? Was it a check, a document, a baseball? What steps were made to prove its authenticity? Thanks!

[QUOTE=Herman Darvick;1033963]I voluntarily authenticate for JSA.



that's the dumbest thing i have ever heard.


who FORCIBLY authenticates for jsa? do they have people chained to their desks over there?

[QUOTE=Herman Darvick;1033963]I voluntarily authenticate for JSA.



that's the dumbest thing i have ever heard.


who FORCIBLY authenticates for jsa? do they have people chained to their desks over there?

Matt,
Somewhere in this thread it was mentioned that the first Jackson sig was a cut from a legal document...and there's the rub. Putting all these comments together, and what we know about Jackson, you have the following:

1. He could sign his name, but barely and it was very labored.
2. He wasn't one to sign his name in front of anyone (probably because he was embarrassed by how long it took him.
3. If he didn't sign in front of someone, and took an item home to sign it...and Katie signed all of his autograph requests, why the heck wouldn't she sign that.
4. Every other legitimate Jackson sig has been from a legal type of document.
5. With his, or any other signer that has a slow/labored signature (and where a letter or two may be erased and re-written from time to time), how the heck would you be able to honestly give an opinion that it was legit.

If some fool wants to spend 13k on an item that "might" be legit even though there's no logical reason why it should be, well, that's their business.
Sure, you look at the autograph and judge it on it's merits, it's just that you can't do that we something like this.

I'm not quite sure that that machine can tell you the AGE of writing sample, as it uses different sources of light for its analyses. I believe it can tell you differences in ink colors, erasures, overwriting, etc., but nothing about age.

I believe that one would have to take a minute sample of the ink, or use the latest advances in mass spectrometry (non-destructive) in order to determine the actual age of the ink (comparing it to known manufacturer's samples). This was done with a Clyde Barrow letter we once handled to determine that the graphite was not of the period: an analysis using a light source of any kind would have been useless. Of course, the cost of such apparatus is far beyond the reach of any autograph dealer or authenticator.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

[QUOTE=travrosty;1033973]Travis - Not speaking for my respected colleague, but I believe he meant to say that he is not paid to authenticate for them.

Clarification of my earlier: Essentially, the supporting material has to be pretty much ironclad for it to carry any weight in an authentication of the writing itself. For someone to say: "My grandmother said she saw Jesus sign it" doesn't merit any consideration.

Yeah, that would be kind of crazy.

But for a 'signer' like Joe Jackson (or Jesus), provenance becomes even more important than for a guy who knew how to write...in English. If someone who was trusted and not in dire financial straits said: "My grandmother remembers my grandfather getting Joe Jackson to sign the book, and it was his most treasured possession, and it's been a part of our family for 70 years" might carry some weight.

Sure - but but the general public buying the piece has to be convinced that the consignor or seller is "trusted", and someone just saying so simply doesn't cut it in today's world, I'm sorry to say.

Not really, Scott. We lawyer types call that "chain hearsay" and it has no value in court because it is not eyewitness evidence of anything.

Adam, that is exactly why this:

"The "Shoeless Joe Jackson" written on the lower portion of the page was written by the collector to identify who signed it."

and this:

"In the signed book, why was the "e" erased and rewritten? Because Joe didn't like the "e" he had signed, erased it, and signed it again. A forger would have to be real dumb to erase a letter and rewrite it. Why was the pressure heavy? Because he hardly ever used a pen and wanted to make sure his signature looked good."

bother me so much. This information, if firsthand, would be valuable. Otherwise, not so much. Yet it came out very quickly in response to doubts about the item. Firsthand is provenance. Anything else in my book is 'legend'. I have no quarrel (although I understand if others may) if it can be used to support any findings of fact. I have a big problem if it is used to attempt to prove a fact.

old people lie as much as yong and middle age, and income has no bearing because it is greed, pride, and other reasons.

barry halper was middle aged, and he sure wasnt in the soup and bread line, had plenty of money, but still lied when he said he got the 500 home run sheet signed by babe ruth at yankee stadium at babe ruth day when halper was a little kid. that was a lie.

and that is the biggest example of how provenance stories may be nice, but cant be trusted, because everybody thought that if halper said it happened, then he is beyond reproach so it had to happen. there is even a quote out there by a respected member of the memorabilia community that said he trusted halpers word above all others and if halper said it was good, it was good and no need at all to question him.

but people lie sometimes and we need more than provenance.

Right, and it still wouldn't get me to buy that autograph. I only collect handwritten letters, and, of course, no one saw such letters written either. It comes down to what you are comfortable with, and while the Jackson book auto might be fine, I wouldn't be comfortable with it - no more than a single-signed Babe Ruth ball.

If you are responding to my post, I also said "If someone who was trusted ";i.e.-YOU (the purchaser) have complete trust in their word. There really are people out there who are not greedy, liars, prideful, etc.

I would be more concerned with an honest person forgetting the facts, as you mentioned earlier: people simply honestly forget things, and I think that has the most bearing when it comes to buying things such as "baseball used in 1909 World Series" or "Nap Rucker's no-hitter ball". Someone wrote on those balls a damned long time ago, but they might have done so 90 years ago (rather than 100), and gotten the balls confused during the post 10 years.

Some hobby friends and I call that the "leap of faith." Obviously the shorter the leap the better. If I were collecting autographs I think the only way I could be comfortable is getting them in person, on legal documents or checks (most times). That's just me though and all you autograph guys probably have your own comfort levels. It's all good as long as you are happy and don't stress too much :).

ps...I should have said, I am in agreement with you Scott.

Following up on "leap of faith" items:

Years ago I sold a watch purportedly given by Marilyn Monroe to JFK on the night of his birthday gala at MSG. Provenance was so-so at best, but the watch dated correctly, engraving was correct, it was encased in a $6,000 gold antique case in a fitted Rolex box, came from an excellent source in the UK, with some limited paperwork. But Rolex was uncooperative with sales records and serial numbers, despite my machinations.

All we had in the way of written provenance was a typed statement with an indecipherable signature and a statement by the sister of one of JFK's top aides, who was not a party to the transaction. Did my due diligence on the physical evidence - there were no autographs involved - and sold the piece with a three-page description advising EXACTLY what we had found, and nothing more.

That's how dealers deal with relics, since that's all you really have to go with, and buyers bid having the same info we do. That's faith...and a gamble. Of course, unlike the infamous Elvis hair, if we had found out it was (allegedly) bogus, it would have been out the door in a flash (instead of having been repeatedly repackaged with the same (allegedly) bogus attribution). Have to be careful in this litigious world...

All five of your points resonate with me. My grandfather was unable to read or write. He was taught to sign his signature by my grandmother. For the remaining 70 years of his life he had my grandmother, then my mother and finally me to do the day-to-day check signing etc. He only signed his name when he was required to for a mortgage, or selling the home or a couple installment loans. I would not be exagerating to say that it was years, sometimes decades in between signatures. His embarrassment was evident as he would struggle to make eleven letters. Each letter was an adventure. Erasures were the norm. I can still see him struggling to write his name, his tongue poking out of one side and then the other of his mouth. He often would stop in the middle of signing, to relax his hand. Each signature was a different train wreck and there certainly was no practicing in between. I can fully understand why Shoeless Joe's labored signature varied greatly over his lifetime. Authenticating it without documentation must be a real crap shoot...:)

Geronimo signed the same way - they weren't letters but more like "pictures" that he memorized and they really meant nothing to him. Yet every "signature" had certain similar traits that forgers to this day haven't picked up on.

I guess I would buy the checks and legal documents, but I prefer the handwritten letters with baseball content.

I did buy a 'leap of faith' autograph last month. It was a letter signed by Arthur Hardy, a black ballplayer back in the first decade of the 1900's who played on a team I am researching. His interviews regarding travel, playing conditions, etc., are priceless and a joy to read. So I broke my own rules and bought an autograph that is impossible to authenticate, only because it was a handwritten letter and I just had to take that leap. I was stressing a little before it arrived.

I was surprised when I received it - the back of the letter is the actual request for information about other black players who Hardy had played with. Good enough provenance for me, but still a minor leap of faith and nothing I would normally purchase.

The other provenance stress I underwent was a glove that Barry Halper owned. It had a typewritten notecard with Bob Feller's signature, but Halper's name still kind of gives me the willies.

why would someone want to put the jackson autograph through the spectral machine now if they know its real, unless they have doubts now? the spectral machine is a glorified black light.

if you want to put anything through the spectral magnatomater spelunkometer machine, put the harry truman ball that sold at eac through the machine. the machine would probably explode. herman, could you ask john to find that ball and put it through the machine? why is there no comment from john anywhere when his name is on the provenance that eac listed when it sold the ball?