Shoeless Joe Jackson Auto- Fake?

[bdangelo]

Those quotes from Ron Keurajian came from this story -- https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/t...G3MVBQL4JBXH4/

[drcy]

At $1.4 million, one could do expert ink analysis.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by drcy

At $1.4 million, one could do expert ink analysis.

Yeah, but that would really only help to prove it a fake if the ink was found to be something from after Jackson had passed away. Wouldn't prove he actually signed it, just that the ink may have been from when he was alive and could have signed it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Yeah, but that would really only help to prove it a fake if the ink was found to be something from after Jackson had passed away. Wouldn't prove he actually signed it, just that the ink may have been from when he was alive and could have signed it.

The writing on the photo dates it to 1911. I don't think anyone has suggested he himself signed it years later, or that that's even a possibility.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The writing on the photo dates it to 1911. I don't think anyone has suggested he himself signed it years later, or that that's even a possibility.

Wasn't sure if that is what David was referring to or not. But again, at best it could only confirm around when the writing occurred, and whether or not the signature and the rest of the writing were from the same ink/pen, and possibly the same or different times.

[drcy]

The point is no one does ink analysis on these autographs.

Ink analysis would determine if the ink's age is consistent with it being from 1911, and help identify a modern fake.

Normally it's time and cost-prohibitive, but this is a $1.4 million dollar autograph.

[SteveS]

Originally Posted by drcy

The point is no one does ink analysis on these autographs.

Ink analysis would determine if the ink's age is consistent with it being from 1911, and help identify a modern fake.

Normally it's time and cost-prohibitive, but this is a $1.4 million dollar autograph.

What is the process in doing an ink analysis? Does a tiny portion of the signature have to be marred in order to get a sample?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by drcy

The point is no one does ink analysis on these autographs.

Ink analysis would determine if the ink's age is consistent with it being from 1911, and help identify a modern fake.

Normally it's time and cost-prohibitive, but this is a $1.4 million dollar autograph.

I get you. Makes sense, just won't prove who signed the signature though.

[ThomasL]

1. Every Jackson signature that is above question is on a document of some kind so yes there are many that are 100% authentic, they are all on documents.

2. As I said before all his real signatures are smaller than the average persons signature and this photo is very large

3. The photo itself has great providence...not the signature on it.

4. The Js on the photo are smooth and I have yet to find a JJ signed document where they are smoothly formed like these. Also very small/narrow top loops.

5. It seems very likely that the same hand wrote everything on that photo and Jackson 100% could not have done that.

6. He ended his signature almost always with a downward stroke and not an up stroke like on the photo

Jackson's real signatures are very consistent through out time and this photo is not consistent with them.

Im sure better experts can point out more issues but these are the ones I would point of.

Here are a few examples I threw together, these are not to scale as the 1911 photo is much larger than any of the others.
(also notice the change in Buck Weaver's signature from 1917 to 1920-21...his signature is a lot harder to judge if you ask me)
-1915 doc
-1911 photo
-1917 team signed document asking for WS bonus money
-1920-21 court document

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

1. Every Jackson signature that is above question is on a document of some kind so yes there are many that are 100% authentic, they are all on documents.

2. As I said before all his real signatures are smaller than the average persons signature and this photo is very large

3. The photo itself has great providence...not the signature on it.

4. The Js on the photo are smooth and I have yet to find a JJ signed document where they are smoothly formed like these. Also very small/narrow top loops.

5. It seems very likely that the same hand wrote everything on that photo and Jackson 100% could not have done that.

6. He ended his signature almost always with a downward stroke and not an up stroke like on the photo

Jackson's real signatures are very consistent through out time and this photo is not consistent with them.

Im sure better experts can point out more issues but these are the ones I would point of.

Here are a few examples I threw together, these are not to scale as the 1911 photo is much larger than any of the others.
(also notice the change in Buck Weaver's signature from 1917 to 1920-21...his signature is a lot harder to judge if you ask me)
-1915 doc
-1911 photo
-1917 team signed document asking for WS bonus money
-1920-21 court document

Could you be more specific about why you think all the writing on the photo is in the same hand? To my completely untrained eye, I can see where the signature and the rest look a bit different.