Rare Shoeless Joe Jackson autograph
 

Lol...:eek:

Something I'd buy for a dollar.

I saw these the other day in the HA auction. Just doesn't add up for me. Interested in hearing the experts chime in on these.

did Joe all of a sudden learn how to write that day:eek:

A very large and reasonably neat signature AND INSCRIPTION,,,in my opinion very typical of Joe Jackson. NOT !! :D:D:confused::confused:

The inscriptions on the photos is noted as being in the hand of the photographer, for what it's worth.

The autograph from the photographer is worth the same as the Joe Jackson signature:eek:.

In comparing this signature to my Joe Jackson auto ( I own his signed 1945 South Carolina driver's license ) and checking those on the PSA autograph facts site I have no confidence in this piece. IMO it is just too neat and too perfect for something signed by Joe, especially signed in 1911 when his career was just beginning to take off and getting the recognition that comes with that. His handwriting at that time would, in my opinion , be as "rough " and unformed as ever since he was young and not accustomed to signing anything he would not have to. A young illiterate man I can't fathom signing that neatly, when his other signatures from the rest of his career/life are not that smooth looking.
I would not bid on it ...I maybe wrong , but I would not let the lure of this photo suck me in.

The article makes it sound like PSA assessed the prints themselves as from the same period as the autographs (1911). PSA is pretty good about getting print age correct.

Heritage uses the term "ironclad provenance" to describe the Mathewson signature. Since they came from the same scrapbook, the Jackson must have the same ironclad provenance: "Bowen's husband, Bill, first saw the scrapbook about 10 years ago. It was stored in a barn near Cleveland and belonged to a couple whose family was friends with Frank W. Smith, a photographer with the Plain Dealer newspaper."

I think it's really neat how this stuff gets found in barns.

http://dyn2.heritagestatic.com/lf?se...oduct.chain%5D

That "Jackson" is just as good as the rest of the signatures in the grouping. Did you see the "Mathewson"?

It reminds me of those nine Ruth picture that also came from a photographer. They where taken down and never heard from again.

All this stuff is found in barns in pristine condition after years....I leave something in my garage for 2 weeks and it looks like crap.
I guess these barns are just cleaner and more climate controlled in Ohio!!:):)

Very strange that there are more than a few Joe Jackson's being auctioned off in relatively short periods of time. Goldin has the 1919 ball right now. Heritage has this photo. What took them so long to come out of hiding? And why at the same time?

The Black Sox ball has been auctioned before.

The same one? I found only one other listing of a 1919 ball from a Legendary auction in 2000 but it lists Gleason and Risberg as being on the sweet spot.

If memory serves me correctly, a Net54 board memory actually did find a very rare five figure mid 1800s salt print photo of baseball pioneers in a barn or similar building. He had recently purchased the land and was refurbishing the building. The photo was unsigned. The photo was real and museum quality, and, in that case, barn provenance didn't add anything to the value. If anything it would have subtracted, with most collectors preferring something more glamorous and historical. Only with modern fakes does having been "found in grandma's cabinet drawer" (the old baseball card cliche) or "back of a garage next to a pile of empty paint cans" add to the resale value. If a genuine 1914 Cracker Jack Ty Cobb or Old Judge Cap Anson card was really discovered in a grandmother's cabinet, I'd bet $5 the experienced seller wouldn't mention the provenance it at sale or say "No, seriously. I'm seriously not kidding you."

well a binder-ful of e300s were found in the trash can, and hundreds of pristine e98s were kept in tincans, so anything can happen. i would hope PSA would be extra careful when this hoard with joe jax/matty/lajoie pristine photos/sigs came into their lap. this wouldn't be just grad's job, hope he'd be consulting keating and their photo expert etc.

and shelly the ruths you are speaking of were in REA right? the ones that were signed for the movie star and authenticated by JSA? i don't remember were those pulled? i thought rob rolls with his authenticator and leans on their "expertise"(which is spence).

The same ball, but I can't find it. I also cannot find the one you are describing.

The only Jackson-signed ball I could find that looked even halfway possible is this one off the Jackson website.

No way joe is good.yech

Here is his signed draft card. I say real. The whole "he couldnt sign" nonsense has been blown completely out of proportion. He very obviously could sign. My guess was he was embarrassed by how poorly he wrote and mostly just avoided doing it.
Attachment 178455

Yes REA and psa did authenticate them.
What I found insulting is that they take them down and never say psa made a mistake.:mad:

You are really going out on a limb there.

Yes as opposed to saying he never signed anything when he obviously did. Lol

Did someone really say that he 'never' signed :confused:

Sorry, I missed that - if you were kicking a moron, I apologize for having a slight laugh at your expense :) Please carry on.

Um.........he signed the card at the bottom, he did not fill out the info. Two entirely different hands at work. His actual signature at the bottom of the draft card looks nothing like the photo . AND I know next to nothing about autographs.


Edited to say photo instead of ball.

Then his autograph must have really deteriorated in the five years between when he signed that photo and that draft card.

Is the photo itself a legit Type 1? It would really take some stones to try faking an autograph on a several thousand dollar piece when the fake signature could have been added to something of lesser value. I don't have a take on the authenticity of the signature, but could you imagine someone trying to fake a Jackson signature on a real 1915 Joe Jackson Cracker Jack?

I'm not referring to the ball just the photo.


Deteriorated and sloppy are two different things. Squeezing his name on to the bottom of a draft card and having free reign on a 5x7 photo could certainly cause a sloppier autograph for an already sloppy autographer. That's the other thing I never understood is people assuming that one autograph has no variations? I signed my name twice a day on my timesheet and cant tell you how many times each one looks significantly different. These (the photo and the draft card) are far from significantly different.

Theonly thing I find suspicious is having two different teams from two different leagues signed on these photos.. I assume the photographer would have had to get the photos developed and then come back and have them signed so even the two teams playing an exhibition game seems unlikely?

I know nothing of autographs, so no intent to throw fuel on the fire, but I will say that I have the worst handwriting of anyone I know, and I am admittedly embarrassed and uncomfortable with my signature. It has changed significantly over the years and today varies notably fom signing to signing. I recall purchasing one of my homes and filling out all the mortgage and legal documents, and the lawyer asked me to do it all again because my signatures varied so much. :rolleyes: To me the photo and draft card are not that significantly different, or at least reasonable that the same person could have done them.

Sean, I was wondering the same thing. First thought was that a lot of these players never made the team (Giants or Indians), so he would had to have gotten the prints made quickly, just to find the players again to sign. Maybe he took them at the beginning of spring training (March), was covering just these two teams, and got them developed over a few days. He would have kept a negative logbook of some sort, so if they were still around after the prints were developed, it shouldn't have been a problem.

Whoever was asking about print dating - read the earlier posts.

Scott, I think I confused the issue by posting pics of the ball.

Here are all the legal documents I could gather, that show his signature - the close-up is from his will. I don't think the one on his contract (with Comiskey), or the 1949 license are authentic, but I'm no Jackson autograph expert. All pics are from Blackbetsy.com:

I don't know a lot about autographs, but I definitely agree with this statement. I write large, typically have a large signature. Whenever I sign my name on a check, it looks a lot different than when I sign my name to another type of document. The reason is, is that the "J" in my last name tends to have a large bottom loop. Well, since there isn't much room at the bottom of a check, I have to modify the "J" to make it fit the check (otherwise it runs off the bottom).

49 license clearly not his signature....(edit) oh you pointed that out already Scott.

I meant photo. my mistake, the documents you provide are the same as the draft card.

If the Heritage photo is real, it's the only signed Joe Jackson photo in existence.

I think there are enough authentic Jackson signatures to compare it to, even if you toss out all the baseballs.

That's his wife's signature, which is funny since it says 'Usual Signature'. She usually signed for him, so I guess it made sense.

Wow - I'm learning.

New York had teams in both leagues - it would be easy to take pics of the Giants at the Polo Grounds, then get some shots of the team visiting the Highlanders...

But then where would the connection to the Cleveland barn come from?

What strikes me as odd are the following two quotes that don't seem to fit together:

"The family offered to sell the scrapbook five years ago to Bowen's husband because they knew how much he treasured the 60 photos. The price tag: $15,000."

"A collector all his life, he appreciated its history and connection to his hometown. Not knowing the book's sky-high value, they never locked it up or worried about keeping it out of sight. "It wasn't an investment," she said."

So, I ask myself, who pays $15,000 for 60 pictures without doing a little research? For that matter, who SELLS 60 pictures for $15k without doing research? And how is that expenditure not an investment? Also, how does a guy who's been "a collector all his life" not know Joe Jackson signatures are quite rare and valuable?

It just sounds odd. I'm not an autograph guy, but should the two "J"s be so different, with the second being so wide? and the "s" on his last name looks more well-formed than images I've seen of his signature. But I don't know anything about that, it's the story I don't quite buy.

The '49 license was obviously proxy-signed by Kate. I don't know who signed the contract--except that it wasn't Jackson.

It was Spring Training - March. The teams might have been right next to each other. I'm sure someone around here can find out where the two teams had spring training in 1911.

The 'discovery' part of the story sounds like hogwash.

Years ago, didn't one of the big auction houes sell a Joe Jackson signed photograph? From what I remember, the signature had been traced over because of Jackson poor handwriting, and subsequently a conservator removed the "traced over" portion leaving the original signature intact?

You could be right - I based my comment on Heritage's claim :eek:

Doesn't the inscription say: Alexandria, May 1911?

In any case, the photos could've been taken in spring training, or in some town (Like Alexandria, VA) as the teams were working their way north to start the season, later developed, and then the sigs could've been obtained as I mentioned - sometime when Cleveland and the Giants were both in NY, hence the May inscription.

I'm sure the Giants spring training facility is mentioned in The Glory of Their Times, maybe with regards to the stories about Charles "Victory" Faust joining the team down there.

The Heritage description for the other photos in the collection says:

"The majority of the photographs were snapped at Cleveland's 1911 spring training grounds of Alexandria, Louisiana.."

I think it is time for you guys to see the new hauls of shame site. It is about Joe and I know you do not like Nash but this is really interesting.
http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=19597#more-19597

Well the purported Jackson signed photo I recalled seeing is the one referenced as having sold in a Sotherby's auction in 1999.

The two teams from different states and leagues thing is pretty weird unless there were other teams signed as well? I just did a comparison on the Ted Easterly and think it is authentic. Of course a good forger could do what I just did too but I think its good.

Attachment 178513

Attachment 178514

Very good point regarding them possibly playing together in the same location during spring training

I think I was wrong about that. In The Glory of Their Times, Fred Snodgrass says, after McGraw offered him a contract for the 1908 season:

"Well, as you can well imagine, I was on that train four days later, going to marlin Texas...The Giants had bought a piece of property in marlin, Texas, a town of about 4,000 or 5,000 people, and had constructed a bal, park there for spring-training purposes...We trained there every spring I was with the Giants, which was until 1915..."

Unfortunately for the theory, marlin is about 300 miles due west of Alexandria, LA.

well that doesnt seem too far in the grand scheme of things. Its certainly possible if they were training in the same state that they would have played and then the autographs retrieved later

The Giants photos were taken in September.

Tom C

A photographer having this many photos of two teams, regardless of timing and/or locations, seems completely reasonable to me. The fact that PSA has reviewed the prints and determined they are the right age (I know I'm repeating myself, but this question has come up twice since I mentioned this fact, and it's documented in the original link that was posted, yet I bet it comes up at least once more) makes me think that we should be concentrating on the signatures themselves, assuming PSA got it right with the prints - they are pretty good at that (again, I repeat myself). With that in mind...

Mathewson stinks. There are plenty of others that can easily be confirmed if anyone has the time and inclination.

I have no insight on the signatures, but I'd want to see the photos in person before I said they were from 1911.

Just an aside... A few years ago SABR published a book on Addie Joss who died in April, 1911. Perhaps a review of that book will reveal something of Cleveland's spring training schedule for that year.

Does this:

http://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/19...a/7130-80052.s

Seem consistent with this:

http://legendaryauctions.com/Napoleo...LOT169557.aspx

An observation on that Lajoie photo. Both the "i" in Lajoie and "i" in Alexandria have offset dots. Both of the "i"s are dotted over the following letter.

David, I would too. But all of us can't individually handle the prints, and PSA/DNA already approved them. I assume that would be Henry Yee or someone very closely associated with him. I'm good with their opinion.

The signatures, not so much.

Just as a side note that I viewed this album in person at the National Convention last year at the Heritage booth. I was skeptical of the autographs but the photographs themselves to appear to be original to the time period, but in pristine condition. They are silver gelatin prints and from what I could tell from a cursory examination, they do appear to be original to the purported date of 1911.

Rhys

Here's a few facts that can be confirmed...

Spring Training site for the Cleveland Naps (now Indians) from 1910-1911 was in Alexandria, Louisiana.
SOURCE: http://www.clevelandareahistory.com/...-training.html

Shoeless Joe Jackson played on the Cleveland Naps from 1910-1915.
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoeless_Joe_Jackson

"F. W. Smith, of Cleveland, for 21 years staff photographer for the "Plain Dealer" and "Leader," announces that he has left newspaper work to devote his entire time to home portrait, commercial and speed photography. Good luck to you, friend Smith!"

SOURCE: (Abel's Photographic Weekly, July 1, 1922) https://books.google.com/books?id=NI...Dealer&f=false

Frank W. Smith obviously lived in Cleveland so that would explain the reason they were in Northeast Ohio.

Here's the part I get lost on... The description of the Christy Mathewson photo says, "Mathewson following through on a warm-up toss before a slowly filling grandstand at Chicago's West Side Grounds".

Why would Frank Smith, the Plain Dealer photographer be in Chicago shooting a Giants-Cubs game? Would he pick up a photo from another photographer to get signed? I doubt that. Any thoughts or theories?

Tom said the Giants photos were taken in September (would have to be Sept 27-Oct 1, Matty threw Sept 28), so late in the season when the NL outcome was soon approaching. The Giants won the NL pennant that year, with the Cubs finishing second, so one of these two teams was likely to win the pennant. It wouldn't be unusual for the newspaper to send their sports photographer to Chicago to cover a series between the two - 4 games, especially given that Cleveland was in Philadelphia during that period and got back home on October 2 to play Detroit.

Thanks Scott.

My pleasure, Matt - I love digging around MLB REF. I was hoping to find that Cleveland was in Chicago at the same time as the Giants, but that would have been too easy.

Prior to finding out that PSA/DNA had checked out the physical prints, I was very skeptical about this - those wide white borders and the minty appearance didn't look right. But given PSA gave their approval, if HA had not included Jackson, Lajoie and Matty, I would have had no problem believing everything was authentic, or at least would have looked more closely at McGraw, Marquard and a few others (which I have not). The Jackson was just too much, and Matty doesn't match anything any of us have seen (I don't think) - the only thing it has going for it is the inscription, which matches up fairly well with an exemplar on PSA's site.

But you have to remember - the major AH's aren't trying to sell to us. For us, the pieces will sell themselves. They are going after the collectors who don't pay attention to this forum.

Sleep well knowing that if something is bad, none of your internet friends will get burned.

The stops and starts in the last name absolutely do. The very unique letter N is very close as well.

Tom C

I was wrong about the item description. The description on the Lajoie photo does not say that the inscription was written by the photographer. It seems to suggest that Lajoie is credited with the inscription.

Agreed, that's actually the best Lajoie exemplar I've seen for matching up with the Frank Smith example.

Tom - have you found any Matty exemplars that compare favorably?

None as of yet. Not really interested in these as a whole so I haven't done much investigating. Just kind of picked the low hanging fruit that was posted by jad22 and gave my opinion on it. I was interested a while back in figuring out when the Giants photos had been signed and used a player database to see when those particular players were with the team at the same time. Turned out to be September through the end of the year 1911.

Tom C

Marquard is dated October 1, so you were spot-on on the dating.

are matty autographs that rare?

Pete, I'm not sure. Matty autographs cost so much that I'm not even remotely in the market for one, so I only follow them casually.

There are loads of good Mathewson exemplars to choose from, and given that we've discussed Jackson and Lajoie, Matty seemed like the next logical one to look at. I doubt all of them are bad - the commons and non-stars are likely all authentic. If the Jackson wasn't in the lot, and the Matty looked better, I probably wouldn't question any of them. But the former is, and the latter doesn't.

Yes they are.
Now after all the back and forth who can say that they would buy that collection. Given everything that you now know.:confused:

hmmm...i'm not an auto guy...but I have a former hygienist who's husband has an early 20's giants team ball w/matty, mcgraw, youngs...I think I posted pics of it way back when the board was older.

Rhys, doesn't the sizes and big white borders seem unusual for the 1911 time period?

I can't speak on the autographs, but based on what I see on the Heritage site, and the sizes that all seem to be either standard studio 8x10 or 5x8 + the big white borders, they seem to fit into the early 1920's time period or so.

Doesn't mean he didn't take these pictures in 1911 and then have them developed at a later date, and then maybe track these guys down one by one..........though that then negates the Mathewson.

Or, explains why the Matty may not be good, when many of the commons appear to be.

"If the commons are good, the expensive ones must be good as well."

This is a thought that forgers have been relying on for years.

Ordinarily I'd agree but in this case all of the photos are said to come from the same source.

It's a bit of a conundrum.

When it comes to things like this, I never automatically take these stories as true, regardless of how sweet the little old lady is, etc. If only the Jackson, or only the Jackson and Matty are bad, there are many possible scenarios as to how that occurred. A common misconception is that because forgeries are abhorrent to us, that they are the product of inferior minds. Forgers are not always dummies - often they are both more creative and more intelligent than you.

if the same type of pen is used, with the same consistent amount of aging/fading from the common stars up to the matty...and if the commons are good, then i'd think the lajoie/jax/matty are also good. who back then would even have a joe jackson examplar to forge from? if they're bad then they're all bad...if they're good then they're all good.

now if it can be proven the photos are period but the ink came much later then the possibility of funny business is greater. like i said with a hoard this big psa probably had all these questions in mind while doing the authentication, you would think.

+1

-1

Yes, if the prints are from 1911 and the ink is from 1911, then they are probably good. Do you know anyone who tests ink on autographs prior to selling them? If you were a forger, you wouldn't try to duplicate the aging/fading of the ink to match some of the commons that you were slipping your high-$ items in with? :confused:

Also, take a few minutes and look at all of the commons - the aging/fading/whatever you want to call it, differs among them. My guess would be that most, if not all, are authentic. But the Matty and Jackson? …they match each other pretty well and are crystal-clear.

And we have seen plenty of forgeries where the 'experts' thought the ink 'looked' vintage.