PAWN STARS Shoeless Joe Jackson signed book...

[alexautographs]

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.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by alexautographs

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?

[travrosty]

.....

[travrosty]

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.

[alexautographs]

Originally Posted by Deertick

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?

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.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by alexautographs

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.

[alexautographs]

Originally Posted by Runscott

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.

[Exhibitman]

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.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

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.

[travrosty]

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.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

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.

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.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

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.

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.