Shoeless Joe Jackson Auto- Fake?

[ThomasL]

I would suggest reading the thread about this same topic from 2015 for those who have not as some of this is explained there by folks better at it and more experienced than I

The case for its all written by the same hand - Written at same time with same instrument I believe was a big part of it.
T
Someone asked about other Jackson signatures from 1911 on documents...as for as I know there arent any, but Mike Nola is who needs to be asked that he probably knows. (there are some alleged on baseballs and they all look like the small scratchy shaky signatures that are on every thing else he signed)

This 1911 photo if signed by Jackson would mean that he basically just learned to write and wrote better at the beginning (presuming he learned after being married to Katie who taught him) than he would just 4 years later

Some are double posts but here are some signatures 1915-1921 and a 1945 drivers license

[ThomasL]

IDK the more I look the more I might think it might not be the same hand...but I know two very well respected autograph experts who are of the opinion it is so thats what Ive really went off of bc they would know better than I. Some of it looks the same to me but that could be happenstance I guess

Here's the 1911 photo cropped and turned

[Peter_Spaeth]

Wife's signature. Capital looking K, regular looking e.

https://robertedwardauctions.com/auc...gned-his-wife/

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Wife's signature. Capital looking K, regular looking e.

https://robertedwardauctions.com/auc...gned-his-wife/

If this is his wife's version of his signature, I would have a difficult time buying the "his wife signed that photo" argument. The differences are pretty drastic.

[Jobu]

Thanks for the info - I am enjoying this thread.

I agree same pen and same date, but "Here, please sign this" and then Smith immediately adding the date and location using the pen in his hand that Jackson just returned seems perfectly plausible to me. And, to me, there is nothing the same about the signature and the rest of the writing. But - I am not a handwriting expert.

I did read the old thread (https://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=201313). There it says that HA noted the inscription as being in the photographer's hand, so maybe my hope for some of Smith's writing in the album Rhys now owns will come to pass.

There are also people in that old thread that questioned the Matty signature, but as I pointed out in post 135 in the current thread, after seeing the 1911 newspaper premium, logic dictates that the Matty is almost certainly legit.

I still see a ton of variation in all of the known to be legit signatures, and the 1914 and 1916 PSA examples (https://www.psacard.com/autographfac...oe-jackson/21/) on documents look somewhat fluid. His later signatures get much worse, but that happens to tons of people as they age, and I would guess more so if they write very little.

Originally Posted by ThomasL

I would suggest reading the thread about this same topic from 2015 for those who have not as some of this is explained there by folks better at it and more experienced than I

The case for its all written by the same hand - Written at same time with same instrument I believe was a big part of it.
T
Someone asked about other Jackson signatures from 1911 on documents...as for as I know there arent any, but Mike Nola is who needs to be asked that he probably knows. (there are some alleged on baseballs and they all look like the small scratchy shaky signatures that are on every thing else he signed)

This 1911 photo if signed by Jackson would mean that he basically just learned to write and wrote better at the beginning (presuming he learned after being married to Katie who taught him) than he would just 4 years later

Some are double posts but here are some signatures 1915-1921 and a 1945 drivers license

[SteveS]

I'm not sure that Joe would have signed it in front of the photographer. He was worried that his teammates would discover his illiteracy. I can't see him standing in front of a photographer while his wife sets out a sample signature that he practices copying until he feels comfortable enough to try it on the photo. Maybe Joe signed it in pencil and the photographer went over it in ink to "clean it up," then added the other stuff. The first "o" does appear to be scratchy.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by SteveS

I'm not sure that Joe would have signed it in front of the photographer. He was worried that his teammates would discover his illiteracy. I can't see him standing in front of a photographer while his wife sets out a sample signature that he practices copying until he feels comfortable enough to try it on the photo. Maybe Joe signed it in pencil and the photographer went over it in ink to "clean it up," then added the other stuff. The first "o" does appear to be scratchy.

Or more likely he didnt sign it at all

[ThomasL]

JoBo - "There are also people in that old thread that questioned the Matty signature, but as I pointed out in post 135 in the current thread, after seeing the 1911 newspaper premium, logic dictates that the Matty is almost certainly legit"....

Unless they (including Matty) were all signed and designed to be Facsimile signatures and thus signed by someone else (which was not unheard of). Newspaper premiums would be exactly something a facsimile signature would be used for.

[Snowman]

I think you guys are giving way too much weight to the fact that he was illiterate. How difficult could it possibly be for an illiterate person to learn how to write their name? It's not like he needs to learn how to read and write. He just needs to learn his name. I'm not buying this idea that he was borderline incapable of signing it. I also don't buy the idea that he never signed baseballs for anyone either. I bet several of the balls in circulation were signed by him but just never get authenticated because it can't be proven.

I cannot read, write, or understand the Chinese or Japanese languages, but I guarantee I could learn how to write my name in both Kanji and Hanzi in about 5 minutes, and everyone in this thread probably could as well.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I think you guys are giving way too much weight to the fact that he was illiterate. How difficult could it possibly be for an illiterate person to learn how to write their name? It's not like he needs to learn how to read and write. He just needs to learn his name. I'm not buying this idea that he was borderline incapable of signing it. I also don't buy the idea that he never signed baseballs for anyone either. I bet several of the balls in circulation were signed by him but just never get authenticated because it can't be proven.

I cannot read, write, or understand the Chinese or Japanese languages, but I guarantee I could learn how to write my name in both Kanji and Hanzi in about 5 minutes, and everyone in this thread probably could as well.

Joe couldn't write in Chinese or Greek or Russian or Arabic. Teaching someone how to write is different than teaching you to write in a different alphabet. I think you are not giving enough consideration to Joe's lack of education. In particular the JAC of Jackson is too well formed to be in the hand of someone who couldn't write and it isn't similar to other early signatures.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I think you guys are giving way too much weight to the fact that he was illiterate. How difficult could it possibly be for an illiterate person to learn how to write their name? It's not like he needs to learn how to read and write. He just needs to learn his name. I'm not buying this idea that he was borderline incapable of signing it. I also don't buy the idea that he never signed baseballs for anyone either. I bet several of the balls in circulation were signed by him but just never get authenticated because it can't be proven.

I cannot read, write, or understand the Chinese or Japanese languages, but I guarantee I could learn how to write my name in both Kanji and Hanzi in about 5 minutes, and everyone in this thread probably could as well.

You are saying this from the perspective of a literate person. You writing anything at all in any language as a literate person cannot be compared to an illiterate person doing anything.

Here's how you can test your theory. Sit down with a 3 year old and show them how to write Kanji. See if it takes 5 minutes. Report back on how it looks.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Jobu

Thanks for the info - I am enjoying this thread.

I agree same pen and same date, but "Here, please sign this" and then Smith immediately adding the date and location using the pen in his hand that Jackson just returned seems perfectly plausible to me. And, to me, there is nothing the same about the signature and the rest of the writing. But - I am not a handwriting expert.

I did read the old thread (https://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=201313). There it says that HA noted the inscription as being in the photographer's hand, so maybe my hope for some of Smith's writing in the album Rhys now owns will come to pass.

There are also people in that old thread that questioned the Matty signature, but as I pointed out in post 135 in the current thread, after seeing the 1911 newspaper premium, logic dictates that the Matty is almost certainly legit.

I still see a ton of variation in all of the known to be legit signatures, and the 1914 and 1916 PSA examples (https://www.psacard.com/autographfac...oe-jackson/21/) on documents look somewhat fluid. His later signatures get much worse, but that happens to tons of people as they age, and I would guess more so if they write very little.

The "e" in Alexandria is weird like the "e" in Jackson, no? Like a backwards 3/capital E.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Jobu

There are also people in that old thread that questioned the Matty signature, but as I pointed out in post 135 in the current thread, after seeing the 1911 newspaper premium, logic dictates that the Matty is almost certainly legit.

Take a look at the signatures of Marquard, Crandall, and Latham on your 1911 newspaper premium — they are each different, in terms of placement and style, from the photographs at auction.

It would appear that this would be an example of the use of facsimile signatures at least on the premium, as Tom suggested above. Either that, or Marquard, Crandall and Latham signed multiple copies of the same photo in different places. This muddies the waters for me.

[T206Collector]

…and, for whatever it’s worth, they both look very similar to the facsimile on Rube’s T205 card.

[Snowman]

It's often difficult for people to think outside of widely accepted narratives. The saying "perception is reality" holds true throughout so many different aspects of life. The illiteracy narrative of Joe Jackson could very well be one such narrative that, at its core, is almost universally misunderstood. That's not to say I'm suggesting he could read and write just fine, but rather that it's very plausible that he could have been illiterate but knew how to write letters and numbers, knew how to do simple arithmetic, and at some point, learned how to spell common names (as in his purported notebook) all while still being technically illiterate as he could not read or write a book. I don't know the history and provenance of the illiteracy story or the extent of the abilities/inabilities he is attributed to have had. But I am someone who regularly views these sorts of narratives through a very different lens than most people. I view them probabilistically and am nearly incapable of accepting them whole cloth. In fact, I see the entire world this way. I see nearly everything probabilistically. Perhaps it's because I am mildly autistic or perhaps it's just because I'm a mathematician at heart, I don't know. But I do know that in general, I often discount what others accept at fact. That's not to say that I don't believe he was illiterate. I'm sure there are very good reasons to believe this. But I discount the probabilities of the various assumptions that can be made based on that fact. Someone above said something to the tune of "that notebook couldn't possibly be his handwriting because Jackson was illiterate". That's an example of a conclusion that someone like me is incapable of making. I think that once a narrative gets formed and begins to perpetuate, particularly one that is 100+ years old, it can become nearly impossible to correct it.

This thread reminds me of the Luka Doncic signature drama. I can't tell you how many times I've encountered the narrative that "his mom signs his cards for him" because there are clear differences in some of his signatures. Some of his autos clearly say "Lulu" in swooping cursive letters that, admittedly, do appear to have a bit of a feminine looking flow to them, while other signatures of his look much more choppy and masculine. The theory is that he signs the masculine ones and had his mom (or some say girlfriend) sign the loopy ones. This is a widespread belief in the modern side of the hobby. You can find YouTube videos and dedicated threads to it on other forums. For many, it's a simple fact: "Luka's mom signs his cards". However, there are mutliple examples of people getting things signed by Luka in person, live on video, where he signs with the exact loopy, feminine-looking version of his signature, yet somehow, this narrative is still extremely difficult to combat. Imagine if we didn't have modern technology and we weren't able to witness him signing both forms of his signature right there before our very eyes. Imagine he was a player from the 1910s and all we had were two versions of his signatures to look at and the tales that got passed down from one generation to the next. I have no doubt that the accepted modern view would be that his mom signed the loopy ones and that only the choppy ones are authentic. Yet, this wouldn't be true. It often takes someone who discounts narratives at face value to see through the fog. That doesn't mean we should completely disregard narratives, but rather that it's beneficial to say, "perhaps that is what happened", or even "most likely, that is what happened", or "I'm sure some version of that is true". But it is a heavy handicap to discovering truth if one approaches these sorts of stories with the viewpoint of "we know X, therefore Y". If you don't question the axioms upon which X stands, then you will often be misled.

[...here come the arrows twisting my words into something ridiculous like me proposing that Jackson wasn't actually illiterate. Again, that's not what I'm saying, so if that's how this post comes across to you, please read it again before putting words in my mouth that I'm just going to have to spit back out...]

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Snowman

It's often difficult for people to think outside of widely accepted narratives. The saying "perception is reality" holds true throughout so many different aspects of life. The illiteracy narrative of Joe Jackson could very well be one such narrative that, at its core, is almost universally misunderstood. That's not to say I'm suggesting he could read and write just fine, but rather that it's very plausible that he could have been illiterate but knew how to write letters and numbers, knew how to do simple arithmetic, and at some point, learned how to spell common names (as in his purported notebook) all while still being technically illiterate as he could not read or write a book. I don't know the history and provenance of the illiteracy story or the extent of the abilities/inabilities he is attributed to have had. But I am someone who regularly views these sorts of narratives through a very different lens than most people. I view them probabilistically and am nearly incapable of accepting them whole cloth. In fact, I see the entire world this way. I see nearly everything probabilistically. Perhaps it's because I am mildly autistic or perhaps it's just because I'm a mathematician at heart, I don't know. But I do know that in general, I often discount what others accept at fact. That's not to say that I don't believe he was illiterate. I'm sure there are very good reasons to believe this. But I discount the probabilities of the various assumptions that can be made based on that fact. Someone above said something to the tune of "that notebook couldn't possibly be his handwriting because Jackson was illiterate". That's an example of a conclusion that someone like me is incapable of making. I think that once a narrative gets formed and begins to perpetuate, particularly one that is 100+ years old, it can become nearly impossible to correct it.

This thread reminds me of the Luka Doncic signature drama. I can't tell you how many times I've encountered the narrative that "his mom signs his cards for him" because there are clear differences in some of his signatures. Some of his autos clearly say "Lulu" in swooping cursive letters that, admittedly, do appear to have a bit of a feminine looking flow to them, while other signatures of his look much more choppy and masculine. The theory is that he signs the masculine ones and had his mom (or some say girlfriend) sign the loopy ones. This is a widespread belief in the modern side of the hobby. You can find YouTube videos and dedicated threads to it on other forums. For many, it's a simple fact: "Luka's mom signs his cards". However, there are mutliple examples of people getting things signed by Luka in person, live on video, where he signs with the exact loopy, feminine-looking version of his signature, yet somehow, this narrative is still extremely difficult to combat. Imagine if we didn't have modern technology and we weren't able to witness him signing both forms of his signature right there before our very eyes. Imagine he was a player from the 1910s and all we had were two versions of his signatures to look at and the tales that got passed down from one generation to the next. I have no doubt that the accepted modern view would be that his mom signed the loopy ones and that only the choppy ones are authentic. Yet, this wouldn't be true. It often takes someone who discounts narratives at face value to see through the fog. That doesn't mean we should completely disregard narratives, but rather that it's beneficial to say, "perhaps that is what happened", or even "most likely, that is what happened", or "I'm sure some version of that is true". But it is a heavy handicap to discovering truth if one approaches these sorts of stories with the viewpoint of "we know X, therefore Y". If you don't question the axioms upon which X stands, then you will often be misled.

[...here come the arrows twisting my words into something ridiculous like me proposing that Jackson wasn't actually illiterate. Again, that's not what I'm saying, so if that's how this post comes across to you, please read it again before putting words in my mouth that I'm just going to have to spit back out...]

I wouldn't rule out Jackson becoming literate at some point, or being literate but simply not writing.

I worked with a guy who is for sure literate. He will not write unless he's almost forced to.
I was after him to sign his work orders once the job was finished, so I didn't come in a day later and waste time redoing it.
After a couple weeks he finally gave in and wrote his name on one. It took him 5 minutes, and made Jacksons signature look good. Apparently he has some bad dyslexia. We agreed that signing or initialing wasn't going to work but he would make a checkmark, x or maybe one initial.
Numbers are less of a problem except he writes so seldom it's also a slow thing.

When you think about it, he had little need to write to play baseball.
But it would be a big benefit in running a store.

[Jobu]

Good spot and interesting observation Paul. For Rube anyway it seems they needed to overlay another signature to make the display fit together without a bunch of white borders as he didn't sign over the photo - so maybe they printed another unsigned photo and added a copy signature to it for him to make the display work. Matty, McGraw, and others are perfect matches for their signed photos though, so it is hard to think that these are anything but the signed originals.

Originally Posted by T206Collector

Take a look at the signatures of Marquard, Crandall, and Latham on your 1911 newspaper premium — they are each different, in terms of placement and style, from the photographs at auction.

It would appear that this would be an example of the use of facsimile signatures at least on the premium, as Tom suggested above. Either that, or Marquard, Crandall and Latham signed multiple copies of the same photo in different places. This muddies the waters for me.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

I would suggest reading the thread about this same topic from 2015 for those who have not as some of this is explained there by folks better at it and more experienced than I

The case for its all written by the same hand - Written at same time with same instrument I believe was a big part of it.

I just read the other thread in its entirety. I must have missed the part where anyone at all, let alone an expert or even an "expert", chimed in with any arguments whatsoever that explained in detail why this couldn't possibly be his signature or why they believe the signature and inscription were written in the same hand.

All I encountered were dozens of people saying things like, "no way, can't be his, it's too big", or "FOUND IN A BARN lololol", or "ya, "found in a barn" bahaha", or "Joe couldn't possibly have written that, look how clean the Alexandria text is", or "Joe was illiterate! He couldn't have signed it", and a few other gems.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I just read the other thread in its entirety. I must have missed the part where anyone at all, let alone an expert or even an "expert", chimed in with any arguments whatsoever that explained in detail why this couldn't possibly be his signature or why they believe the signature and inscription were written in the same hand.

All I encountered were dozens of people saying things like, "no way, can't be his, it's too big", or "FOUND IN A BARN lololol", or "ya, "found in a barn" bahaha", or "Joe couldn't possibly have written that, look how clean the Alexandria text is", or "Joe was illiterate! He couldn't have signed it", and a few other gems.

On Blowout there is a link to Peter Nssh's lengthy archived post on this. I can't post it here because of the rules though.