Shoeless Joe Jackson Auto- Fake?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I think you guys are giving way too much weight to the fact that he was illiterate. How difficult could it possibly be for an illiterate person to learn how to write their name? It's not like he needs to learn how to read and write. He just needs to learn his name. I'm not buying this idea that he was borderline incapable of signing it. I also don't buy the idea that he never signed baseballs for anyone either. I bet several of the balls in circulation were signed by him but just never get authenticated because it can't be proven.

I cannot read, write, or understand the Chinese or Japanese languages, but I guarantee I could learn how to write my name in both Kanji and Hanzi in about 5 minutes, and everyone in this thread probably could as well.

Joe couldn't write in Chinese or Greek or Russian or Arabic. Teaching someone how to write is different than teaching you to write in a different alphabet. I think you are not giving enough consideration to Joe's lack of education. In particular the JAC of Jackson is too well formed to be in the hand of someone who couldn't write and it isn't similar to other early signatures.

[Peter_Spaeth]

At this point, the bottom line for me is, if you're going to authenticate a Joe Jackson autograph which you know is going to be worth an awful lot of money, you better be damn sure. I don't see how Steve Grad could have been damn sure. At best he could have thought it more likely than not authentic, and that doesn't seem good enough to put that permanent blessing on it.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

At this point, the bottom line for me is, if you're going to authenticate a Joe Jackson autograph which you know is going to be worth an awful lot of money, you better be damn sure. I don't see how Steve Grad could have been damn sure. At best he could have thought it more likely than not authentic, and that doesn't seem good enough to put that permanent blessing on it.

I doubt as much time or thought went into his decision and consideration as was done here and on BO. It was another feather in the cap moment. It does seem to have definitely been a reach.

[Klrdds]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

At this point, the bottom line for me is, if you're going to authenticate a Joe Jackson autograph which you know is going to be worth an awful lot of money, you better be damn sure. I don't see how Steve Grad could have been damn sure. At best he could have thought it more likely than not authentic, and that doesn't seem good enough to put that permanent blessing on it.

I trust the people on here much more than I ever would Steve "Dollar Signs " Grad .
He has made his share of mistakes on high dollar items before. He was much better when he was starting out IMO.

[terjung]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

At this point, the bottom line for me is, if you're going to authenticate a Joe Jackson autograph which you know is going to be worth an awful lot of money, you better be damn sure. I don't see how Steve Grad could have been damn sure. At best he could have thought it more likely than not authentic, and that doesn't seem good enough to put that permanent blessing on it.

Without commenting on the authenticity of the autograph, it should be noted that the "more likely than not" is the threshold accepted for experts in trial. It can be dolled up in more flowery language like "within a reasonable degree of certainty," but it all boils down to "at least 51% sure." Now, that can certainly be higher than that (as I personally like to be 100% convinced that I am correct before testifying to an opinion), but the "at least" 51% is the magic threshold. So, I suspect that if autograph experts were to be pressed in litigation, it'd boil down to the same degree of certainty. After all, it is only their opinion. It is up to the marketplace (or a jury) to determine if that opinion carries any weight.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by terjung

Without commenting on the authenticity of the autograph, it should be noted that the "more likely than not" is the threshold accepted for experts in trial. It can be dolled up in more flowery language like "within a reasonable degree of certainty," but it all boils down to "at least 51% sure." Now, that can certainly be higher than that (as I personally like to be 100% convinced that I am correct before testifying to an opinion), but the "at least" 51% is the magic threshold. So, I suspect that if autograph experts were to be pressed in litigation, it'd boil down to the same degree of certainty. After all, it is only their opinion. It is up to the marketplace (or a jury) to determine if that opinion carries any weight.

To me that's apples to oranges. I don't think 51 percent cuts it for authenticating a million dollar item. I'd prefer an authenticator apply a reasonable doubt standard. I very much doubt any collector would be satisfied with a 51 percent standard.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by rats60

Joe couldn't write in Chinese or Greek or Russian or Arabic. Teaching someone how to write is different than teaching you to write in a different alphabet. I think you are not giving enough consideration to Joe's lack of education. In particular the JAC of Jackson is too well formed to be in the hand of someone who couldn't write and it isn't similar to other early signatures.

Snowman's whole purpose of being here is to play the contrarian. There is nothing he would not defend at this point. A guy who has 11 different post grade degrees would know EVERYTHING about someone who never went to school.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by rats60

Joe couldn't write in Chinese or Greek or Russian or Arabic. Teaching someone how to write is different than teaching you to write in a different alphabet. I think you are not giving enough consideration to Joe's lack of education. In particular the JAC of Jackson is too well formed to be in the hand of someone who couldn't write and it isn't similar to other early signatures.

When you zoom in, you can still see those letters are clearly labored. Was it because the hand writing it was attempting to forge his signature which was known to be labored, or was it because Joe signed it himself? We can't know with certainty, but I think it's reasonable to begin looking at all of the circumstantial evidence (the full portfolio and all of the other signatures and inscriptions that came with it) to increase or decrease the likelihood of its authenticity. In the video someone linked to earlier where Gold explains his process, this is what he did and it appears as though the braoder portfolio combined with the labored handwriting is what convinced him.

I also think the argument above about him having more room to sign on a large photo, as opposed to having to fit his signature into a tiny space on a driver's license, could account for a few letters being slightly cleaner than they are in other known examples of his signature where the spacing was limited.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

At this point, the bottom line for me is, if you're going to authenticate a Joe Jackson autograph which you know is going to be worth an awful lot of money, you better be damn sure. I don't see how Steve Grad could have been damn sure. At best he could have thought it more likely than not authentic, and that doesn't seem good enough to put that permanent blessing on it.

I think this is the most reasonable position to take. I'm glad to see we don't always disagree

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

I doubt as much time or thought went into his decision and consideration as was done here and on BO. It was another feather in the cap moment. It does seem to have definitely been a reach.

You should check out the video linked to earlier in this thread. Gold walks the viewer through his thought process, albeit briefly.

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Snowman's whole purpose of being here is to play the contrarian. There is nothing he would not defend at this point. A guy who has 11 different post grade degrees would know EVERYTHING about someone who never went to school.

I apologize if my point about most people here being capable of learning how to write their names in Kanji in 5 minutes, despite being illiterate in Japanese, didn't land with you. Perhaps I should have said "some" people here could do this rather than "most". I hope I didn't offend you. I will be better next time.