1913 D&M Joe Jackson Sign

[khkco4bls]

I googled it and it came up. Is that the one for 535.00 dollars. If it is it doesn't look good to me. Why is the clarity of it so bad? Someone can post it from google.
.

[ruth-gehrig]

Would love to know if someone on the board got it!

[perezfan]

I believe the eBay sale did indeed go through...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-Basebal...#ht_254wt_1141

Below is a prior example from REA, for comparison... IMO the REA example is much crisper/clearer than the one on ebay. Perhaps the seller's camera lens was just really dirty!

http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/...x?itemid=14570

[perezfan]

Just to play "Devil's Advocate", the clarity on the ebay example could be lots worse, as a result of the heavy resotoration.

[CarltonHendricks]

I remember that piece from within the last couple weeks.....I put the brakes on long enough to give it a once over...Based on the photos the front looked like it could be real...but then I recall when I looked at the back I started laughing...the front was all fatigued...but the back looked new...I gave it a look over and was out of there as fast as I came in...

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by CarltonHendricks

I remember that piece from within the last couple weeks.....I put the brakes on long enough to give it a once over...Based on the photos the front looked like it could be real...but then I recall when I looked at the back I started laughing...the front was all fatigued...but the back looked new...I gave it a look over and was out of there as fast as I came in...

U remember the piece from a couple of weeks ago? in person or from ebay?...

U say based on the photos it looked like it could be real so u were looking at photos of it, or the actual piece in your hands? then u say u were out of there as fast as you came in? in where?

[ruth-gehrig]

Carlton - Was it at one time being represented and offered without mention of the restoration because he fully disclosed the restoration and rebacking on ebay.

[TUM301]

Originally Posted by ruth-gehrig

Carlton - Was it at one time being represented and offered without mention of the restoration because he fully disclosed the restoration and rebacking on ebay.

Exactly, this is the area that thru me off. Would rather have seem it offered pre restoration . very interesting piece to say the least.

[CarltonHendricks]

Originally Posted by ruth-gehrig

Carlton - Was it at one time being represented and offered without mention of the restoration because he fully disclosed the restoration and rebacking on ebay.

Michael, My bad...I never made it to the description...I looked at the front...then when I saw the back immediately dismissed it as a new repro that was so bad they didn't take the time to fatigue the back to match the front...I took it for just another fake that was remarkably sloppy and left the page without even reading what it had to say...but now that I read here restoration and a new backing was disclosed I get it...I understand all the interest....

[Shoeless Moe]

I do not know whether it is real or a reproduction. Like J Gallo said on the other side, I too have never seen these come up b4, so if they were faked usually you would see a couple, however that being said this very well could have been a 1 and done repro by someone.

The seller is 100% genuine and a good guy. He offered me a full refund if it turns out to not be real. So that led me to take a chance, not to mention the extensive research he did.

First he like us Googled it and found the only other one at REA a few years ago, so he contacted them. They could not make a determination over the emailed pix and said they would need to see it in person or he should take it to a professional art restoration service and see if they could determine.

Well he did that, and the restoration company told him it matched printing methods and die cuts of the era.

REA recommended to him to get it restored, which he did.

So.......unless the restoration company, which is Phoenix Art Restoration in Seattle Washington, which is Better Business Bureau accredited is wrong, which I guess is always possible, I think it could be real, and was definitely worth the gamble.

I should get it Tues or Weds and will attempt to determine on my own, but if I can't there is the Chicago Sports Show in town, the following week, and I know Heritage and a few others will be there, I will show it to them.

He is including all the Phoenix Art Restoration paperwork, and b4 and after pix......so....we'll see.

[Shoeless Moe]

"It's real and its spectacular!"

To quote Jerry Seinfeld.

I'm still not 100% sure, so I will take it to the sports show next week. REA also mentioned putting it under a black light, unfortunately I do not have one. I'll ask around, or anyone know where to find a blacklight? And would the restoration affect the black light test?

The report from the Restoration Company sure sounds like the piece is real. It looks old & feels old. They state its old. They also mention in their report, "the paper was flaky and fragile due to its age". They also mention it had mildew on his leg, poor Joe.

It is dark though, so while it may be from 1913, the darkness makes it look more like its from his Black Sox days. Like Leon said it might benefit some more from some more restoration. I'll post some more pix over the next few days but you've pretty much seen it so not sure what it would add.

[murphusa]

I am guessing the restoration cost more than what he got on ebay

[perezfan]

I was thinking the same... not much room for profit there.