Hughie Jennings, Ty Cobb autographs; help needed!

[Bpm0014]

Any help would be greatly appreciated! This bat originally came with a 2001 James Spence COA that ALL autographs on this bat (Labeled "1916-17 Detroit Base Ball Club") were authentic. I have the COA. However, the auction house I purchased it from said that James Spence re-evaluated it and ONLY the Hughie Jennings was authentic. I posted pics on the main page and I've had people opine that NONE of the signatures are authentic. However, behind the scenes via private message, I've had 2 long-standing members tell me that ALL of the signatures could be authentic due to the medium used (wood/bat) and that it may have been difficult for the players to sign the bat. For the record, I have ZERO PROBLEM returning the bat and asking for my money back. What puzzles me is that 1. The Donie Bush looks ok to me, 2. The Oscar Stanage looks ok to me, and 3. If someone were trying to fake a Ty Cobb autograph, why does it look nothing like his genuine signature?? Think about it....if you are trying to fake Ty Cobb's autograph, why not at least make it look like his genuine signature?? Could it be that it is genuine, and was just a little difficult to sigh on wood/a bat? I'm kind of lost, and any and all help would be appreciated (again). (I originally posted these pics on the main page and were told to move them here for more opinions.) Thanks!!

[Econteachert205]

Was this the bat from another thread where the Jennings was right but the rest were declared to be clubhouse signed and the op was trying to decide if they should remove the bad sigs?

[Klrdds]

I think this bat has been covered before....last month in fact

[Bpm0014]

Yes, it was covered. However, I was told to move it here so that some of the "autograph experts" could maybe/hopefully render an opinion. I'm simply moving it to the correct "side".

[ATP]

Hi Brendan, third times a charm :-) The autograph section is right above this one, right now it's posted in the memorabilia section so not sure if the right folks are going to see it here.
Best,
Jeff

[Bpm0014]

Agh!! I see it. Now to figure out how to move it..... Thanks Jeff. I hope all is well.

Brendan

[Econteachert205]

The cobb does not have the normal top cross on the t. The only cobb I could find that looked close in this way is here

http://www.mlive.com/sports/grand-ra...natures_o.html

What you said about if someone was going to forge a cobb why wouldn't it look more like his standard signature... Since the piece is period to ca. 1916 and most wouldn't know what a cobb sig would look like, much less be in the business of reselling one, I would still say that if not authentic, the cobb and other sigs we're put on in the clubhouse not to deceive collectors but to satisfy someone who wanted the sigs and probably never found out they weren't real. Still a cool piece.

[Runscott]

I don't know if this helps, but - while the 'C' in 'Cobb' doesn't look like how he normally signed a 'C', it does look like a 'C' from that time period - certainly not modern. So if this was forged, it was done a very long time ago.

[Bpm0014]

The ink is positively vintage and all the signatures were signed in the same ink. I just hate to give up so easily and dismiss these as forgeries. Especially since (again) the Stanage and Bush look ok to me.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Bpm0014

The ink is positively vintage and all the signatures were signed in the same ink. I just hate to give up so easily and dismiss these as forgeries. Especially since (again) the Stanage and Bush look ok to me.

I don't think the Cobb is as bad as you say it is - Cobb's signature was closer to this in the 1910's, and as I've already mentioned, signing on a bat isn't like signing a ball or a flat. I can excuse every part of the Cobb signature except for the 'C' - the 'C' is totally vintage, but not how Cobb signed.

Can you show a better picture of the 'Stanage'? There are 1910-20's Stanage examples available for comparison.

[yanks12025]

There have been other Ty cobb signed bats and those autos look like his normally signed flats/baseball autos.

[Econteachert205]

At this point there is agreement on the Jennings being def good and the rest being absolutely period. The rest do not appear to have been done in the same hand, so that likely takes out the notion of it being a clubhouse/ old forgery. That would likely speak well for the bush and stanage. The cobb has elements that people like and others that are questionable. But it is early cobb and so there are likely still variations in the signature. I would say a likely possibility after looking more would be that minus the cobb the bat is good, and that the cobb is a toss up, maybe some better cobb experts can weigh in but I tried to look over variations and couldn't find an exact measurement with the t and c done in that manner.

[yanks12025]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

At this point there is agreement on the Jennings being def good and the rest being absolutely period. The rest do not appear to have been done in the same hand, so that likely takes out the notion of it being a clubhouse/ old forgery. That would likely speak well for the bush and stanage. The cobb has elements that people like and others that are questionable. But it is early cobb and so there are likely still variations in the signature. I would say a likely possibility after looking more would be that minus the cobb the bat is good, and that the cobb is a toss up, maybe some better cobb experts can weigh in but I tried to look over variations and couldn't find an exact measurement with the t and c done in that manner.

Where is there a agreement that the Jennings is good???

[Econteachert205]

I guess I misspoke about the Jennings, I was assuming there was agreement that the original ok given by spence was correct

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

Where is there a agreement that the Jennings is good???

The Jennings looks good to me.

Another possibility is that all the autographs are good except Cobb, and that Cobb was added as a 'clubhouse' (I hate that term) because he was the most famous player on the team, and 'needed' to be on the bat. The clubhouse signatures I've seen from the '40s-'60s are so bad that if this is a clubhouse, being much earlier than '40s-'60s, it's a damned good one (I would expect it to be equally horrible as compared to more modern ones). Keeping in mind that forgeries are normally a lot better than clubhouse.

Just thinking out loud. I would love to see this item be totally authentic, which probably colors my thinking.

[Econteachert205]

Originally Posted by Runscott

The Jennings looks good to me.

Another possibility is that all the autographs are good except Cobb, and that Cobb was added as a 'clubhouse' (I hate that term) because he was the most famous player on the team, and 'needed' to be on the bat. The clubhouse signatures I've seen from the '40s-'60s are so bad that if this is a clubhouse, being much earlier than '40s-'60s, it's a damned good one (I would expect it to be equally horrible as compared to more modern ones). Keeping in mind that forgeries are normally a lot better than clubhouse.

Just thinking out loud. I would love to see this item be totally authentic, which probably colors my thinking.

Scott I am thinking this is the most likely scenario as well, but I am not a cobb sig expert on the early sigs so I'm holding out hope.

[Bpm0014]

Although Spence says that the Jennings is authentic, I think there are still a couple of people on the fence with it. But yes, I will try to get a better pic of the Stanage. It's a tad bit faded, but looks comparable to the other 2 Stanages that I have. Same with the Donie Bush. And although I would love for all of these to be authentic, I simply would like a definitive answer either way (if that's possible). Thanks again for all of your continued input; I would still love to hear from some others as well.

Brendan

[Bpm0014]

Additional pics

[Econteachert205]

To my eye bush could def be legit. The bush portion has similarity to samples I saw though there isn't much I could find of him on a bat.

[Bpm0014]

The first thing I said was that the Bush looked legit (only because I have 1-2). Same with the Stanage. As for the others, no clue...

[Econteachert205]

It's such a tough call, and to me, spence made it harder. First the whole bat is good, then just the Jennings. It makes no sense really, who would ghost sign bush and stanage at the time, in sigs that look like their hand? IMO the sig that looks least like many examples is the Jennings. It's an awesome item, I've probably spent too long looking at it.

[Runscott]

Brendan, I would just enjoy it. Your opinion of these autographs is every bit as valid as JSA's.

[yanks12025]

I don't think the Jennings is real and to me looks nothing like his auto.. The H doesn't match his other autos. Plus Can anyone show an example of a Jennings autograph signed HUGHIE like on this bat. All the ones from this time period I have found so far are signed HUGH. So why would he sign it differently??????

Also pretty sure he spelled his first name wrong. That sure looks like HEUGHIE.

[Runscott]

Brock, that's a good point about 'Hugh' vs 'Hughie'.

This bat is likely to remain an enigma.

[Klrdds]

It doesn't look like an "e" to me but a bad attempt at an exaggerated loop at the bottom of the descender on the 2nd vertical "H" stem that Jennings at times used when signing his name.
Sorry but that is what it looks like to me.
To throw my 2 cents in on this I do not feel comfortable with this bat.