Shoeless Joe Jackson Auto- Fake?

[Republicaninmass]

I believe it is official...

We had 122 posts when it was discovered, and now 125 debating the authenticity!

Stay classy!

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I believe it is official...

We had 122 posts when it was discovered, and now 125 debating the authenticity!

Stay classy!

That shows the value going up.

As the card market continues to spike to do does our debates

[Leon]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

That shows the value going up.

As the card market continues to spike to do does our debates

Our cards are going up faster than inflation! Middle America can barely afford to collect any longer.
.

[ThomasL]

Earliest I have found are a couple of 1915 signatures (one sold by REA posted here).

People mentioning Jackson's "labored" signature and that is a good definition of it, and while the signature in the photo in question appears labored...it is not labored to the extent Jackson's signature was..."very labored" is a better way to describe Jackon's signature.

The best example is that the Js are very fluid and smoothly formed in the photo compared to Jackson's very labored Js on most all other documents.

I dont think there is another real Jackson signature where he ends the "o" and tails with an up stroke...most are down strokes and some are a straight stroke...another red flag for me is the up and over tails on the "J"s that's very distinctive and I dont see another signature that looks like that.

And again cant stress enough the biggest red flag is how large that writing on the photo is...someone said you cant be 100% either way and that is correct...but I think it is not unreasonable to be firm on one side and Im firm fake.

[ThomasL]

I would like to ask for those who think it is real....IYO...what letters match known document signatures?

Make a case it's real

[Jobu]

I think people are taking the easy way out by piling on the signature being no good. I have a whole bunch of thoughts on this:

ONE

When these were discovered, people also took the easy way out, saying that the Matty and Jackson didn't look good but that the rest of the "commons" were probably fine. I get the logic of thinking a forger would hide the big money fakes by putting them with the commons, but the flip side of that is that there is no reason to think someone collecting full team signatures would get only the commons but skip the stars. In fact, it should be the opposite, so this proves/suggests nothing.

TWO

The Giants photos, with their autographs on them, were used as a newspaper premium ahead of the 1911 World Series:

1911 Frank Smith NY Giants.jpg

So, unless Frank Smith found someone to forge Matty's signature in the early fall of 1911 while having everyone else on his team sign their names, Matty should be ok as should all of the other Giants.

THREE

I am with Snowman on not putting too much stock in the Joe Jackson Museum guy's opinion. Unless he has some training in handwriting analysis that we don't know about, or specializes in the penmanship of illiterate people, I don't know why his opinion counts for any more than anyone else who can look at the handful of examples of Jackson's signature that can be found online. He may know as much about Jackson's life as anyone alive, but that does not make him a handwriting expert. (Just like I am not a handwriting expert.)

FOUR

I also don't think that the size of the signature compared to his others (https://www.psacard.com/autographfac...oe-jackson/21/) means much. All of the other examples are on small lines in documents - if handed a large photo with no signature guidelines on it and asked/convinced to sign it, of course he wouldn't write a tiny autograph down in the corner, he would do his best to make it fit with the size of the photo.

FIVE

Smith, the photographer, was the local Cleveland photographer. He knew the players - he also got two team's worth of these types of signed photos. The Giants make sense as a World Series assignment, the Indians make sense because they were his hometown team. The Indians had Spring Training in Alexandria LA only in 1910-1911, so maybe Smith took the Indians series in 1911, liked it, and later that season suggested that he could do the same thing for a Giants World Series preview.

SIX

This is not a lone signed Jackson photo coming out of nowhere, it was in a team album all of the same types of photos by a known local photographer who knew the players and did another similar signed team series in the same year that was published at the time the photos were taken/autographs obtained. The fact that Jackson was unskilled at signing his name combined with the extra large size of the signature to match the size of the photo, the lack of a signature line on the photo to guide him all, and the smooth/glossy surface of the photo, which is different to write on than the plain paper that all his other signatures are on (especially with a fountain pen), suggest that this signature might not end up being a perfect match for all of his other signatures. (And because of his difficulty signing, his other signatures are also far from perfect matches for each other.)

As I mentioned, l am not a handwriting expert. But I also don't think that any of the reasons being put forward to doubt this signature hold water.

[tazdmb]

Here are 3 "Alleged" 1912 Autographs of Joe Jackson. All are from the 1912 scrapbook donated to the Hall of Fame. The autographs are for sure from 1912....by who, can't say for sure.

While all signed by the same person, a very reputable authenticator believed they were not signed by Jackson. If people know the history of this book, 2 brothers from Pittsburgh would bring the scrapbook book to home games and get the signatures IP, sometimes handing it to a player in the dugout and that player would get the rest of the team. Rumor is Ty Cobb was so impressed, he stopped a game so the Tigers could sign... Anyways, make your own judgements.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Jobu

I think people are taking the easy way out by piling on the signature being no good. I have a whole bunch of thoughts on this:

ONE

When these were discovered, people also took the easy way out, saying that the Matty and Jackson didn't look good but that the rest of the "commons" were probably fine. I get the logic of thinking a forger would hide the big money fakes by putting them with the commons, but the flip side of that is that there is no reason to think someone collecting full team signatures would get only the commons but skip the stars. In fact, it should be the opposite, so this proves/suggests nothing.

TWO

The Giants photos, with their autographs on them, were used as a newspaper premium ahead of the 1911 World Series:

Attachment 482867

So, unless Frank Smith found someone to forge Matty's signature in the early fall of 1911 while having everyone else on his team sign their names, Matty should be ok as should all of the other Giants.

THREE

I am with Snowman on not putting too much stock in the Joe Jackson Museum guy's opinion. Unless he has some training in handwriting analysis that we don't know about, or specializes in the penmanship of illiterate people, I don't know why his opinion counts for any more than anyone else who can look at the handful of examples of Jackson's signature that can be found online. He may know as much about Jackson's life as anyone alive, but that does not make him a handwriting expert. (Just like I am not a handwriting expert.)

FOUR

I also don't think that the size of the signature compared to his others (https://www.psacard.com/autographfac...oe-jackson/21/) means much. All of the other examples are on small lines in documents - if handed a large photo with no signature guidelines on it and asked/convinced to sign it, of course he wouldn't write a tiny autograph down in the corner, he would do his best to make it fit with the size of the photo.

FIVE

Smith, the photographer, was the local Cleveland photographer. He knew the players - he also got two team's worth of these types of signed photos. The Giants make sense as a World Series assignment, the Indians make sense because they were his hometown team. The Indians had Spring Training in Alexandria LA only in 1910-1911, so maybe Smith took the Indians series in 1911, liked it, and later that season suggested that he could do the same thing for a Giants World Series preview.

SIX

This is not a lone signed Jackson photo coming out of nowhere, it was in a team album all of the same types of photos by a known local photographer who knew the players and did another similar signed team series in the same year that was published at the time the photos were taken/autographs obtained. The fact that Jackson was unskilled at signing his name combined with the extra large size of the signature to match the size of the photo, the lack of a signature line on the photo to guide him all, and the smooth/glossy surface of the photo, which is different to write on than the plain paper that all his other signatures are on (especially with a fountain pen), suggest that this signature might not end up being a perfect match for all of his other signatures. (And because of his difficulty signing, his other signatures are also far from perfect matches for each other.)

As I mentioned, l am not a handwriting expert. But I also don't think that any of the reasons being put forward to doubt this signature hold water.

+1 and well said. The strengths in favor of this being authentic, for me, are with the photographer and the accompanying photos of all the other team members who signed their name, paired with him doing this again with the Giants. As you stated, it would be quite a stretch to assert that the stars signatures are all fakes, but the commons are all legit.

I can't state with absolute certainty that this is 100% authentic, and neither should anyone else. But I find the arguments against it to be not very interesting, and if I were someone with 1.5m to spend on something like this, I would have had no problem bidding on it as I believe it is most likely authentic.