PAWN STARS Shoeless Joe Jackson signed book...

[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 travrosty

old people lie as much as yong and middle age, and income has no bearing because it is greed, pride, and other reasons.

If you are responding to my post, I also said "If someone who was trusted ";i.e.-YOU (the purchaser) have complete trust in their word. There really are people out there who are not greedy, liars, prideful, etc.

I would be more concerned with an honest person forgetting the facts, as you mentioned earlier: people simply honestly forget things, and I think that has the most bearing when it comes to buying things such as "baseball used in 1909 World Series" or "Nap Rucker's no-hitter ball". Someone wrote on those balls a damned long time ago, but they might have done so 90 years ago (rather than 100), and gotten the balls confused during the post 10 years.

[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.

[alexautographs]

Following up on "leap of faith" items:

Years ago I sold a watch purportedly given by Marilyn Monroe to JFK on the night of his birthday gala at MSG. Provenance was so-so at best, but the watch dated correctly, engraving was correct, it was encased in a $6,000 gold antique case in a fitted Rolex box, came from an excellent source in the UK, with some limited paperwork. But Rolex was uncooperative with sales records and serial numbers, despite my machinations.

All we had in the way of written provenance was a typed statement with an indecipherable signature and a statement by the sister of one of JFK's top aides, who was not a party to the transaction. Did my due diligence on the physical evidence - there were no autographs involved - and sold the piece with a three-page description advising EXACTLY what we had found, and nothing more.

That's how dealers deal with relics, since that's all you really have to go with, and buyers bid having the same info we do. That's faith...and a gamble. Of course, unlike the infamous Elvis hair, if we had found out it was (allegedly) bogus, it would have been out the door in a flash (instead of having been repeatedly repackaged with the same (allegedly) bogus attribution). Have to be careful in this litigious world...

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

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.

I guess I would buy the checks and legal documents, but I prefer the handwritten letters with baseball content.

I did buy a 'leap of faith' autograph last month. It was a letter signed by Arthur Hardy, a black ballplayer back in the first decade of the 1900's who played on a team I am researching. His interviews regarding travel, playing conditions, etc., are priceless and a joy to read. So I broke my own rules and bought an autograph that is impossible to authenticate, only because it was a handwritten letter and I just had to take that leap. I was stressing a little before it arrived.

I was surprised when I received it - the back of the letter is the actual request for information about other black players who Hardy had played with. Good enough provenance for me, but still a minor leap of faith and nothing I would normally purchase.

The other provenance stress I underwent was a glove that Barry Halper owned. It had a typewritten notecard with Bob Feller's signature, but Halper's name still kind of gives me the willies.

[travrosty]

why would someone want to put the jackson autograph through the spectral machine now if they know its real, unless they have doubts now? the spectral machine is a glorified black light.

if you want to put anything through the spectral magnatomater spelunkometer machine, put the harry truman ball that sold at eac through the machine. the machine would probably explode. herman, could you ask john to find that ball and put it through the machine? why is there no comment from john anywhere when his name is on the provenance that eac listed when it sold the ball?