Shoeless Joe Jackson Auto- Fake?

[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.

[Klrdds]

Originally Posted by rand1com

They give an opinion, no more, no less. 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.

The good reason was not to make a big time / powerful AH mad at them and then the other motive is $$$$