Shoeless Joe Jackson Auto- Fake?

[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.

[ThomasL]

tazdmb - those look like his wifes ghost signatures (attached wife signed 1919 contract)

Jobo - good points, one counter is people put facsimile writing and signatures on things all the time even in that time period, not an uncommon practice to do that. I would add that I think someone who has spent 20-30 years looking at Joe Jackson autographs would have a better idea of what his signature looks like than an employee at PSA (a company who has authenticated bad autographs in the past so their opinion is not above reproach either)

It is for sure possible one time in his life Jackson was handed a photo and signed it and happened to sign it completely different than he would sign everything else the rest of his life...but I doubt it

I think it is easy to yell fake if you are just doing it to be provocative...but trying to lay out reasons why someone thinks that is not the easy way and just opens them up to be questioned and possibly ridiculed (as has happened in this case)...the real easy way out and take here is someone blindly accepting it I would argue.

[tazdmb]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

tazdmb - those look like his wifes ghost signatures (attached wife signed 1919 contract)

.

Great call, never saw the Mrs. signature from that early in his career. Agreed with wife signature.

[Klrdds]

Ok I'll bring this up since I've not seen this brought up .
If the signature on the just auctioned photo is authentic , and the signature on the composite is authentic , and the 3 examples that Frank posted are authentic then can someone please explain what happened to Joe in a span of 5 -6 years to have his signature change so dramatically and actually become truly deteriorated compared to those earlier examples on the photo , the composite , and the books Frank posted ?
There is no mention of Joe developing or having any debilitating sickness or injury or physical limitations or alcohol abuse or mental issues which could cause drastic and rapid signature decline. Plus looking at his on field performance I think it's clear he had no problems.
So then what would be the cause of this drastic signature change ? AND yes it is a drastic change in his signature . His signature after roughly 1915 /1916 never changed for over 30 + years.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It would truly facilitate this discussion if someone is able to post large images of each known and alleged Jackson signature from 1911 on and in chron order so they're all in one place for visual reference. It's confusing to a simpleton like me when people discuss this signature or that one but one has to scroll around to find the image or images being discussed. Thomas did post a few images but at least on my screen they are small.

[SteveS]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It would truly facilitate this discussion if someone is able to post large images of each known and alleged Jackson signature from 1911 on and in chron order so they're all in one place for visual reference. It's confusing to a simpleton like me when people discuss this signature or that one but one has to scroll around to find the image or images being discussed. Thomas did post a few images but at least on my screen they are small.

OK, here ya go. These are from PSA's website. I'm sure there are more verified signatures of his, but there are enough here to get an idea. I've isolated just the signatures and put them in chronological order as best I could (1915-1949; one wasn't dated). The last one is the auctioned photo. Here is the link from where I got them:https://www.psacard.com/autographfac...joe-jackson/21

[Peter_Spaeth]

Awesome thanks. First impression is that the two capital J's in the '11 photo don't look the same as the rest, and the c is more open at the top. And we still have the Alexandria problem.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Awesome thanks. First impression is that the two capital J's in the '11 photo don't look the same as the rest, and the c is more open at the top. And we still have the Alexandria problem.

The Alexandria text is not a problem to me. In my opinion, that was clearly written by someone else.

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by Klrdds

Ok I'll bring this up since I've not seen this brought up .
If the signature on the just auctioned photo is authentic , and the signature on the composite is authentic , and the 3 examples that Frank posted are authentic then can someone please explain what happened to Joe in a span of 5 -6 years to have his signature change so dramatically and actually become truly deteriorated compared to those earlier examples on the photo , the composite , and the books Frank posted ?
There is no mention of Joe developing or having any debilitating sickness or injury or physical limitations or alcohol abuse or mental issues which could cause drastic and rapid signature decline. Plus looking at his on field performance I think it's clear he had no problems.
So then what would be the cause of this drastic signature change ? AND yes it is a drastic change in his signature . His signature after roughly 1915 /1916 never changed for over 30 + years.

I was thinking the same thing.

[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.