Black Sox Memorabilia Up For Auction

[MacDice]

What do the auto experts think?

http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story...ilia-auctioned

[shelly]

Originally Posted by MacDice

What do the auto experts think?

http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story...ilia-auctioned

About what

[packs]

I would have serious doubts. Why would Joe Jackson, someone widely thought of as illiterate, sign the sweet spot of a baseball?

[RelicSports]

I agree with Packs...Jackson putting his sig on the sweet spot seems a little off to me (not judging the actual signature as I really am unsure of Joe Jackson sigs...)

[packs]

I immediately got the "too good to be true" vibe from it. No opinion on the rest of the pieces. The baseball sticks out most because it seems so unlikely that Jackson would have signed it, let alone on the sweet spot, which is exactly where you'd want such a valuable signature to be.

[jad22]

Comes with JSA and PSA/DNA certs.

[Runscott]

Kevin - I think forgery skills are well beyond what most of us would think. We probably accept many of them as authentic.

[Runscott]

For instance, I can think of at least one huge $ ball that I am positive is a forgery and David is certain is real. It is scary out there.

[Runscott]

...and my comment is not regarding David's expertise, but rather on the disagreement in the hobby over some very expensive items.

[kengoldin]

I wanted to comment on these comments, as a member of net54.

First off, as many of you know, I started off as a teenager collecting team signed balls. At one point, I owned what I consider the #1 or one of the #1 balls in the hobby, a 1915 Red Sox ball with Babe Ruth (which was sold to me in the late 1980s by Josh Evans). Unfortunately, I lost that ball and several other when my house was robbed while my ex wife was living in it and I was not (no comments please). I also own virtually a full run of team signed balls from every pennant winner from 1923 to the present, with a decent amount prior to that going back to 1909 Detroit.
I obviously have seen a number of 1920 or earlier balls, and from holding this ball, there is no doubt in my opinion this is definitely a 90+ year old ball. It looks like every other ball I have seen (or own) from that period.

Upon getting the consignment, I wanted to get modern letters from PSA/DNA and JSA. They now have equipment that they did not have years ago, such as the digital boxes they use to blow up images, look at in different light such as UV to spot removals, etc.
Both PSA/DNA and JSA saw the ball (JSA in NJ, PSA we shipped to CA). They both issued letters in Dec 2014.
As far as the Risberg, our site has a function to allow you to blow an item up to 10x or more the size you see. Instead of saying its a misspelling and he dotted an 'i' there, I suggest you blow it up, and then hit the little magnifying glass symbol to blow it up super HD. you will see it is not an 'i' but is an inkdrip from the prior letter. After reading the posts on the forum, I personally emailed and called JSA as well as PSA/DNA with a link to the post about the supposed misspelling. Jimmy Spence told me to grab the ball and look at it and I will see its not an 'i' but a drip. I took it out of the vault and he is correct. PSA/DNA also confirmed their LOA , issued just 2 weeks ago.
The ball does have some scattered enhancements where the shellac has peeled especially, and is noted in the description.
This ball has been sold twice previously, both at major auction houses, most recently two years ago in a platinum auction of Heritage. I am sure the public and this board has had many years and many times to look and review the ball.
I am sure the discussion will continue, ( but I apologize in advance for not being part of the back and forth banter) but in fairness to the consignor I wanted to point out this information, especially with respect to the Risberg name. The auction has not opened yet, it opens Monday. I invite any member who wishes to come to our office and inspect the ball in person any time between now and closing Feb 7. I would highly recommend that before commenting on something. I am aware of a very high value, high profile item that 'failed' authenticity based on images of the item. Based on pictures, this incredible expert (NOT being sarcastic, he is the best or one of the best) said tHe item was not authentic. However, upon seeing it in person apologized and said they were mistaken and that's the danger of giving opinions based on pictures alone. I think in some cases (not the obvious Mantle fakes....) that is a good policy for many on this board to follow.
thank you
Ken Goldin

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by kengoldin

I wanted to comment on these comments, as a member of net54.

First off, as many of you know, I started off as a teenager collecting team signed balls. At one point, I owned what I consider the #1 or one of the #1 balls in the hobby, a 1915 Red Sox ball with Babe Ruth (which was sold to me in the late 1980s by Josh Evans). Unfortunately, I lost that ball and several other when my house was robbed while my ex wife was living in it and I was not (no comments please). I also own virtually a full run of team signed balls from every pennant winner from 1923 to the present, with a decent amount prior to that going back to 1909 Detroit.
I obviously have seen a number of 1920 or earlier balls, and from holding this ball, there is no doubt in my opinion this is definitely a 90+ year old ball. It looks like every other ball I have seen (or own) from that period.

Upon getting the consignment, I wanted to get modern letters from PSA/DNA and JSA. They now have equipment that they did not have years ago, such as the digital boxes they use to blow up images, look at in different light such as UV to spot removals, etc.
Both PSA/DNA and JSA saw the ball (JSA in NJ, PSA we shipped to CA). They both issued letters in Dec 2014.
As far as the Risberg, our site has a function to allow you to blow an item up to 10x or more the size you see. Instead of saying its a misspelling and he dotted an 'i' there, I suggest you blow it up, and then hit the little magnifying glass symbol to blow it up super HD. you will see it is not an 'i' but is an inkdrip from the prior letter. After reading the posts on the forum, I personally emailed and called JSA as well as PSA/DNA with a link to the post about the supposed misspelling. Jimmy Spence told me to grab the ball and look at it and I will see its not an 'i' but a drip. I took it out of the vault and he is correct. PSA/DNA also confirmed their LOA , issued just 2 weeks ago.
The ball does have some scattered enhancements where the shellac has peeled especially, and is noted in the description.
This ball has been sold twice previously, both at major auction houses, most recently two years ago in a platinum auction of Heritage. I am sure the public and this board has had many years and many times to look and review the ball.
I am sure the discussion will continue, ( but I apologize in advance for not being part of the back and forth banter) but in fairness to the consignor I wanted to point out this information, especially with respect to the Risberg name. The auction has not opened yet, it opens Monday. I invite any member who wishes to come to our office and inspect the ball in person any time between now and closing Feb 7. I would highly recommend that before commenting on something. I am aware of a very high value, high profile item that 'failed' authenticity based on images of the item. Based on pictures, this incredible expert (NOT being sarcastic, he is the best or one of the best) said tHe item was not authentic. However, upon seeing it in person apologized and said they were mistaken and that's the danger of giving opinions based on pictures alone. I think in some cases (not the obvious Mantle fakes....) that is a good policy for many on this board to follow.
thank you
Ken Goldin

Hey Ken,
Thanks for providing the link to the pricerealized.com site. I just spent about a half hour looking it over. It's an extremely useful tool!

[shelly]

+1

[Runscott]

Thanks Ken. There are many signatures on this ball, plenty of physical characteristics to consider, and also the general characteristics such as signature flow and pressure comparisons, etc. I doubt that any opinion as to the authenticity of the entire ball would be rendered based soley on one letter in one signature.

[shelly]

Ken, my problem is that a baseball signed by Joe Jackson are not often seen.
Please tell me has there ever been outside of this ball a Joe Jackson signed baseball signed on the sweet spot/ and if so what year.
Every thing I have read about this man says at the time he played for the sox he could hardly write his name, his wife signed for him. It is really hard to believe that he could hold that ball and write his name on the sweet spot when he could not sign a blank piece of paper.
I would be much happier if I new that the ink on that ball was signed at that time. I really don't care about Psa or Jsa. I would like to have a forensic lab test that ball.

[kengoldin]

[QUOTE=shelly;1364743]Ken, my problem is that a baseball signed by Joe Jackson are not often seen.
Please tell me has there ever been outside of this ball a Joe Jackson signed baseball signed on the sweet spot/ and if so what year.

1919 World Series Game Ball Hit for a Home Run By Joe Jackson Autographed on the Sweet Spot By Joe Jackson

$37,203.65
Price Realized

(Includes Buyers Premium)

Robert Edward Auctions
Sold on Jun 9, 1996https://www.pricerealized.com/#!/Ite...By-Joe-Jackson

I would join pricerealized.com as a paying member
that link may not be active to non members, not sure
type in 'joe Jackson signed baseball' you will see plenty of balls, even a bat.
Hunt, REA, Heritage, etc sales back to the 1990s.

To edit this, I just received an email from a baseball historian who specializes in dead ball era signatures. He informed me that one of the 2 'indecipherable' signatures on the ball was Byrd Lynn. I thank him for his info.

[sbfinley]

I have no opinion on the ball's authenticity other then it passed both JSA and PSA. But I've always wondered this: the legend we've all heard was that he was basically incapable of signing his own name without practicing first. Yeah, he was illiterate - but he was also sharp enought to bat .400. Is this myth largely blown out of proportion? He signed both his drivers' licenses and bonds for his brother and was likely asked for his autograph no short of a thousand times in his lifetime. In most instances he likely could have backed out of it, but if he had the mental capacity to hit the way he did, he was probably smart enough to memorize ten letters in order. No?

[Runscott]

There is a Matty sig in the auction, that comes from the same collection.

[Runscott]

Any opinions on the Matty or Lajoie? There are 59 others from the 'Frank W Smith' collection as well, pics not yet posted.

[Runscott]

Here's the Matty.

[David Atkatz]

Come on, Scott. You know that one is as good as the Jackson.

[RichardSimon]

Holy crap. It is not April 1st yet is it?

[Runscott]

And last but not least. I would love to see pics of the ones in the lot of 57:

Cleveland Naps and New York Giants comprise the most thrilling autograph "find" in years!
1911 The Frank W. Smith Collection Balance of Fifty-Seven Signed Photographs.
The complete collection as it was compiled and then stored and forgotten for over a century comprised sixty signed photographs, and here we present 95% of that original population, every image but the "Shoeless Joe" Jackson, Christy Mathewson and Napoleon Lajoie representations that precede this lot. It's a remarkable time capsule from the heart of the Dead Ball Era, a leatherbound scrapbook that recounts a warm spring in Alexandria, Louisiana, where the Cleveland Naps prepared for the approaching 1911 American League season. The New York Giants images were snapped at the 1911 Chicago Cubs' home park, the West Side Grounds, later that same year.

A few exceptions to the theme lead off the album, images shot and signed both before and after the 1911 season, but the remarkable quality is consistent throughout, with bold autographs and minimal wear to the images themselves. What follows is an inventory of contents, beginning at the front of the album and continuing to the end. Note that some of the men apparently didn't ever make the Major League cut and thus are difficult to identify or simply unknown to even the most educated baseball historian:

Ernest Barnard, William Blackwood (Naps traveling secretary) and Edna Jameson (Naps receptionist), Detroit Tigers image unsigned, Fred Sypher (sporting editor of the Youngtown Telegram) and T.L. Terrell (Naps coach), Deacon McGuire (Naps manager), R.J. Gilks (Naps coach), Joe Birmingham, Sam Kennedy (Naps coach), Doc White (Naps trainer), Fred Blanding, Willie Mitchell, Vean Gregg, Cy Falkenberg, George Kahler, Earl Yingling, Gene Krapp, Spec Harkness, Hi West, [unknown], Ben DeMott, Harry Farrwell, [unknown first name] Kraft, Walt Doan, Jack Adams, Grover Land, Syd Smith, Ted Easterly, Judge Nagle, Jack Graney, Ivy Olson, George Stovall, Dave Callahan, Cotton Knaupp, Herman Bronkie, Art Griggs, Gus Fisher, Eddie Hohnhorst, Spud Hennessey (Giants bat boy), John McGraw (removed and graded PSA NM-MT 8), Chief Meyers, Rube Marquard, George Hartley, Hooks Wiltse (lightly smeared), Doc Crandall, Red Ames, Beals Becker, Larry Doyle and Josh Devore, Louis Drucke, Fred Merkle, Arthur Fletcher, Art Devlin, [unknown], Gene Paulette, Bert Maxwell, Fred Snodgrass, Arlie Latham, Red Murray.

The autographs are applied with either pencil or fountain pen ink, and average 8/10 or better with almost no exception. The Naps images are almost exclusively 8x10" in size, and the Giants 5x8", with all exhibiting minor handling wear and a few light to moderate creasing, but none falling below a technical VG rating. The average is somewhere between EX-MT and NRMT.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Holy crap. It is not April 1st yet is it?

The Lajoe and Mathewson have full PSA letters and the Jackson has both PSA and JSA.

Edited to add: I realize that there is reluctance to discuss any possible bogus material that's in a Heritage auction, because they are big and because they are an advertiser here. It would be refreshing to see members IN ADDITION TO THOSE who have been banned from HA, voice their opinions. I feel that most of the large AH's appreciate a mature discussion regarding questionable items. None of them are immune from criticism - it's all about how they respond to it. At best, our feedback helps them provide better service. At worst, it lets them know we aren't blind and are going to yell if they knowingly auction forgeries. Saying it has a PSA and/or JSA certificate doesn't fly with most of us. It's up to the auction house to do a sanity check on big items BEFORE giving them to PSA or JSA.