Check this Joe Jackson auto out

[2dueces]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

The partial signature was cut from the back of an envelope--sent to Jackson--upon which Jackson "practiced" signing--it contained two complete signatures, as well as the partial. It had been sold at auction (Heritage) for $45,000, and had been authenticated by PSA.


Cutting up that envelope was a crime. Without the association with the Jackson envelope, that "Jo" is worthless.

I agree. What a shame. Turned a nice piece of memorabilia into a piece of ....
Disgusting.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by 2dueces

I agree. What a shame. Turned a nice piece of memorabilia into a piece of ....
Disgusting.

There is little doubt the other two signatures will show up as separate cuts as well. Three Jacksons for the price of one...

[thecatspajamas]

You mean 2.2 for the price of one...

[mschwade]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

There is little doubt the other two signatures will show up as separate cuts as well. Three Jacksons for the price of one...

While most of us will agree that it's a travesty this was done, they forked out the 48K+, so they can do with it what they want.

[GrayGhost]

Card looks like crap.

[39special]

It looks worse than crap.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by mschwade

While most of us will agree that it's a travesty this was done, they forked out the 48K+, so they can do with it what they want.

Legally, yes, of course. But it's still wrong.

As collectors, we are merely caretakers. These artifacts existed before we were born, and they'll still be around--if we do our jobs--when we're gone.

The argument "He bought it, so he can do whatever he wants," is bullshit.

[mschwade]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Legally, yes, of course. But it's still wrong.

As collectors, we are merely caretakers. These artifacts existed before we were born, and they'll still be around--if we do our jobs--when we're gone.

The argument "He bought it, so he can do whatever he wants," is bullshit.

I'm not saying it's right, believe me, I hate seeing such a beautiful letter and envelope cut up. He owns it though, and it's his legal right to do what he wants.

Navarro gets his rookie cards signed, a lot of the card guys don't agree with him, but it's his right also (and for the record, as an autograph guy, I like that Navarro does that.)

[thenavarro]

Originally Posted by mschwade

Navarro gets his rookie cards signed, a lot of the card guys don't agree with him, but it's his right also (and for the record, as an autograph guy, I like that Navarro does that.)

I resemble that remark

[mschwade]

Originally Posted by thenavarro

I resemble that remark

And resemble it well!!

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Legally, yes, of course. But it's still wrong.

As collectors, we are merely caretakers. These artifacts existed before we were born, and they'll still be around--if we do our jobs--when we're gone.

The argument "He bought it, so he can do whatever he wants," is bullshit.

Please note that I do agree with you.

But, what do you say about automobiles going to the junkyard. MANY people consider those works of art. While, yes you most likely won't see a Ferrari, you may see an old Benz or even a Rolls Royce past its prime.

[David Atkatz]

Many a junkyard Benz or Rolls is bought and restored. Even a lowly VW beetle is saved from returning to the iron oxide from whence it came. (I know, 'cause I own one.)

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Many a junkyard Benz or Rolls is bought and restored. Even a lowly VW beetle is saved from returning to the iron oxide from whence it came. (I know, 'cause I own one.)

Many are, but many aren't. Do you still believe that the owner doesn't have the right to discard of it?