Shoeless Joe Jackson Auto- Fake?

[SteveS]

Packs, I agree with you totally, and that's why I've said that it doesn't seem appropriate for either side to say that they are 100% certain. However, I also agree with drcy that an ink analysis would be huge here. Not necessarily the age of the ink, as old ink is available. But if there's a way to show conclusively how long the ink has been on the paper (without damaging the signature), that would go a heck of a long way to show that Joe signed it. I doubt anybody in 1911 was thinking of forging his signature on a photo.

[packs]

The earliest example I see on PSA's site is from 1916, 5 full years after this photo. Unless there is anything to suggest another signature from 1911 exists on a legal document, I don't know how you even know Jackson could write at all in 1911.

[Fred]

"Say it aint so.... Joe"

[Fred]

What seems weird to me is that the signature of Joe Jackson looks very labored, but the "Alexandria Mar 1911" looks pretty clean.

If someone else wrote the other information then they must have used the same pen because it sure looks like the same ink that was used for the signature.

I'm no expert but I can see people calling BS on this. What kind of "provenance" is supposed to be associated with this?

[prewarsports]

I believe the photographer may have added the "Alexandira 1911" afterwards. No comment on the authenticity of the autograph, but that is something I believe several collectors think when I have discussed this item with them.

I would imagine the ink would be from 1911 as it was adhered in the scrapbook with the entire team, all signed in ink. The photographer would have had no need to forge the autograph of a player he had free access to. The provenance and circumstantial evidence is very strong for the ink being period as it also looks like it should in the scans. Whether or not Joe signed it or someone else, no clue. Something I have been thinking about though is that if Jackson could not sign and someone was going to sign for him, why would they make it laboured and slow to make it look like his autograph?

I have no idea, just a couple of thoughts that have gone through my mind. I bought the "remnants of the album" with the other Cleveland players still in the photo album so maybe the blank sheet the Jackson was originally stuck to is still in there, when I get it from Christie's I will let you guys know.

Rhys

[packs]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I believe the photographer may have added the "Alexandira 1911" afterwards. No comment on the authenticity of the autograph, but that is something I believe several collectors think when I have discussed this item with them.

I would imagine the ink would be from 1911 as it was adhered in the scrapbook with the entire team, all signed in ink. The photographer would have had no need to forge the autograph of a player he had free access to. The provenance and circumstantial evidence is very strong for the ink being period as it also looks like it should in the scans. Whether or not Joe signed it or someone else, no clue. Something I have been thinking about though is that if Jackson could not sign and someone was going to sign for him, why would they make it laboured and slow to make it look like his autograph?

I have no idea, just a couple of thoughts that have gone through my mind. I bought the "remnants of the album" with the other Cleveland players still in the photo album so maybe the blank sheet the Jackson was originally stuck to is still in there, when I get it from Christie's I will let you guys know.

Rhys

What do you think about giving an opinion at all? Whether or authentic or not, I don't think it's possible for an authentication service to have someone on staff who specializes in the writing of illiterate people. He's not writing in block lettering but him being illiterate opens the possibilities for signatures that aren't his to be attributed to him. Labored writing is usually a tell for a lot of signatures but if every signature is labored, you're relying more and more on the story behind it and that's not how you're supposed to set about authenticating something.

[Tao_Moko]

Originally Posted by packs

What do you think about giving an opinion at all? Whether or authentic or not, I don't think it's possible for an authentication service to have someone on staff who specializes in the writing of illiterate people. He's not writing in block lettering but him being illiterate opens the possibilities for signatures that aren't his to be attributed to him. Labored writing is usually a tell for a lot of signatures but if every signature is labored, you're relying more and more on the story behind it and that's not how you're supposed to set about authenticating something.

+1
Well put. The bottom line is this should not have been slabbed or marketed as anything other than questionable. Provide the provenance and let the buyer make the decision. Responsibility and accountability are not at play here. I don't care if someone wants to drop this kind of money on an unknown, but it does speak to the continued failure of 3rd party authentication.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by SteveS

Packs, I agree with you totally, and that's why I've said that it doesn't seem appropriate for either side to say that they are 100% certain. However, I also agree with drcy that an ink analysis would be huge here. Not necessarily the age of the ink, as old ink is available. But if there's a way to show conclusively how long the ink has been on the paper (without damaging the signature), that would go a heck of a long way to show that Joe signed it. I doubt anybody in 1911 was thinking of forging his signature on a photo.

The dryness test I mentioned judges how long the ink has been on the paper. It's a standard test.

[SteveS]

Originally Posted by drcy

The dryness test I mentioned judges how long the ink has been on the paper. It's a standard test.

OK. That's the one in which you said that a "small bit" of the ink has to be removed. How much is a "small bit," and how would it affect the signature? And how specific can it nail down the range of time that the ink was on the paper? Because I'm thinking that if it can give a definite range within a few years give or take of 1911, it would go a very long way to authenticate the signature. Other than his wife, who had a distinctive way of signing his name, who else would be putting his autograph on a photo? Who else even knew what his signature looked like? Assuming that the test doesn't do any visible damage to the signature, it would definitely be a worthwhile venture.

[chadeast]

Originally Posted by SteveS

OK. That's the one in which you said that a "small bit" of the ink has to be removed. How much is a "small bit," and how would it affect the signature? And how specific can it nail down the range of time that the ink was on the paper? Because I'm thinking that if it can give a definite range within a few years give or take of 1911, it would go a very long way to authenticate the signature. Other than his wife, who had a distinctive way of signing his name, who else would be putting his autograph on a photo? Who else even knew what his signature looked like? Assuming that the test doesn't do any visible damage to the signature, it would definitely be a worthwhile venture.

https://sports.ha.com/itm/autographs...a/7130-80051.s

This link was posted earlier in the thread, but I am going to post it again. If you have any faith in Heritage and their analysis of the photograph when they sold it in 2015, the answer to that question may very well be Frank W. Smith.

[drcy]

There may be new non-invasive ways to do it.

Determining age is a very significant test, because a forgery would be modern.

[SteveS]

Here's something interesting, although I'm not sure if it means anything other than sloppy work by one of the auction houses. In the Heritage link that Chad posted, they describe it as a "labored pencil signature." But in the Christie's description, they call it "boldly signed by Jackson in black fountain pen."

[packs]

Again, mentioning this only for timeline. In this SABR article, it says that Jackson signed his first professional contract with an X. I'm guessing the article is referring to Greenville in 1908. This photo is from 1911. So we know definitively that Joe Jackson could not write his name in 1908 and here is a photo with a pretty nice Joe Jackson just 3 years later. In fact, to me this photograph has one of the most fluid and well executed Jacksons of any I've seen, which again must have been signed shortly after he learned to write at all.

I think it's again important to know whether or not Joe Jackson could write his name in 1911. The earliest confirmed signature (on some kind of voucher) listed on PSA's site is from 1916.

[rand1com]

They give an opinion, no more, no less. It is not binding and they are not held responsible for mistakes. Read the form you sign when submitting your item and that will be clear. I personally don't like the signature and agree that if he could only place an "X" on his 1908 contract it is unlikely he could sign his name this well in 1911. Perhaps, the famous photographer left a note stating that he personally witnessed Jackson signing his photo. Who knows for sure but you can bet PSA/DNA knew this was an extremely valuable item whenever they authenticated it and you have to assume they had a good reason for opining that it is authentic.