Shoeless Joe Jackson Auto- Fake?

[drcy]

Originally Posted by BobC

But in this instance no one knows for certain if it is or isn't real, and likely never will.

That would be the reason why you wouldn't issue an LOA for something.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by drcy

That would be the reason why you wouldn't issue an LOA for something.

There would be very, very few authenticated autos out there if this were the criteria…which by the way I fully support. If you don’t know, just say you don’t know.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

There would be very, very few authenticated autos out there if this were the criteria…which by the way I fully support. If you don’t know, just say you don’t know.

The problem is that most people don't think probabilistically. They want a thumbs up or a thumbs down. They can't wrap their heads around the confusion matrix output that yields an 83% probability of a signature being authentic. The authenticator can make two different types of errors: they can reject a valid signature, and they can authenticate a forged one. But there's a trade off between these, and where you choose to operate on the ROC curve has consequences in either direction that increase or decrease the likelihood of getting it wrong one way or the other. The truth is, even the best of the best authenticators would be expected to make mistakes at a rate that almost no one in this hobby would find acceptable unless they were a mathematician or a statistician who knows what sort of outcomes to expect and who knows how to see the world through the lens of probability. If I were to say that I would expect the best experts in the world to be wrong something like 15% of the time, most people would probably tell me I'm an idiot, but the ones who don't call me an idiot would almost certainly tell me I'm an idiot when I tell them that they'd probably be wrong something like 30 to 40% of the time. But that's the ballpark of what I would expect to see if we were to set up a test with a sample set of signatures using a mix of authentic and forged examples with no provenance to accompany them. It's just not something that humans are going to be "good" at no matter how much one studies it. This is why provenance is so important. It can drastically increase the likelihood of authenticity.

Imagine if every LOA or COA came with the truth printed on it. "JSA is 91% confident that this baseball has been signed by Mickey Mantle", or "PSA/DNA estimates that there is a 74% probability that this photo has been signed by Willie Mays. However, this does not meet our confidence threshold of 85%, so we are unable to authenticate it at this time." Nobody would pay for their service if this was the end product. So they just give us the thumbs up or thumbs down instead. But the reality is, they're going to get this stuff wrong far more often than most people would expect, and certainly more often than they would be comfortable with if they knew the truth. But the reality is, PSA and JSA are both probably a hell of lot better at it than any of us are.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Snowman

The problem is that most people don't think probabilistically. They want a thumbs up or a thumbs down.... It seems that most collectors want them to be nearly infallible.

I think this is a subset of a more general concept that is applicable well beyond autograph authentication. The problem is that most people don't think probabilistically. They want someone to tell them the answer.

[mrreality68]

The Bottom Line is back both in 2015 and present day many people have questions about the autograph and if it is legit or not.

Regardless of the questions, the doubts, etc
Regardless of its trail of "documentation" and the Auction Houses it sold thru

The reality is that it sold for what it sold for and it is not considered the most valuable autographed photo.

Someone paid big money in 2015 and someone paid bigger money in 2021

My guess when it sells again in the future it will sell for big money..

Hopefully it would be nice in the future it can be confirmed either way.

But until then the Debate Goes on

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Snowman

The problem is that most people don't think probabilistically. They want a thumbs up or a thumbs down. They can't wrap their heads around the confusion matrix output that yields an 83% probability of a signature being authentic. The authenticator can make two different types of errors: they can reject a valid signature, and they can authenticate a forged one. But there's a trade off between these, and where you choose to operate on the ROC curve has consequences in either direction that increase or decrease the likelihood of getting it wrong one way or the other. The truth is, even the best of the best authenticators would be expected to make mistakes at a rate that almost no one in this hobby would find acceptable unless they were a mathematician or a statistician who knows what sort of outcomes to expect and who knows how to see the world through the lens of probability. If I were to say that I would expect the best experts in the world to be wrong something like 15% of the time, most people would probably tell me I'm an idiot, but the ones who don't call me an idiot would almost certainly tell me I'm an idiot when I tell them that they'd probably be wrong something like 30 to 40% of the time. But that's the ballpark of what I would expect to see if we were to set up a test with a sample set of signatures using a mix of authentic and forged examples with no provenance to accompany them. It's just not something that humans are going to be "good" at no matter how much one studies it. This is why provenance is so important. It can drastically increase the likelihood of authenticity.

Imagine if every LOA or COA came with the truth printed on it. "JSA is 91% confident that this baseball has been signed by Mickey Mantle", or "PSA/DNA estimates that there is a 74% probability that this photo has been signed by Willie Mays. However, this does not meet our confidence threshold of 85%, so we are unable to authenticate it at this time." Nobody would pay for their service if this was the end product. So they just give us the thumbs up or thumbs down instead. But the reality is, they're going to get this stuff wrong far more often than most people would expect, and certainly more often than they would be comfortable with if they knew the truth. But the reality is, PSA and JSA are both probably a hell of lot better at it than any of us are.

In other fields a cert stating "we decline to render an opinion" does occasionally happen especially on very rare items.

And the experts when confronted with evidence showing that an earlier opinion was wrong will correct the opinion.
A writeup of an item accepted as genuine since at least the 1950's.
https://www.rfrajola.com/opinions/klep.htm

And the auction listing that prompted the examination. (Lot 68)
https://siegelauctions.com/lots.php?...r+8-10%2C+1998

Yes, experts will make mistakes, but real experts fix them when they're wrong. And are wrong a lot less than PSA etc on expensive items.

For some reason our hobby generally accepts an opinion from some experts as written in stone, and the companies do the same.
I'm unsure about the Jackson photo, but am inclined to think it's not his signature.
For a million plus, I'd want way more convincing than "well, PSA says so" And to be entirely clear, I believe the hobby in general deserves better than that.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by steve B

In other fields a cert stating "we decline to render an opinion" does occasionally happen especially on very rare items.

And the experts when confronted with evidence showing that an earlier opinion was wrong will correct the opinion.
A writeup of an item accepted as genuine since at least the 1950's.
https://www.rfrajola.com/opinions/klep.htm

And the auction listing that prompted the examination. (Lot 68)
https://siegelauctions.com/lots.php?...r+8-10%2C+1998

Yes, experts will make mistakes, but real experts fix them when they're wrong. And are wrong a lot less than PSA etc on expensive items.

For some reason our hobby generally accepts an opinion from some experts as written in stone, and the companies do the same.
I'm unsure about the Jackson photo, but am inclined to think it's not his signature.
For a million plus, I'd want way more convincing than "well, PSA says so" And to be entirely clear, I believe the hobby in general deserves better than that.

As these expensive items migrate from collectibles to investments, the focus migrates from the item itself to the flip/certification. IMO.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As these expensive items migrate from collectibles to investments, the focus migrates from the item itself to the flip/certification. IMO.

They're investing in the "market value"

[drcy]

The problem is when authentication and grading companies "financially insure" the items.

They are giving their opinions, and the way to corrupt the process, and that has corrupted the process, when they are "financially backing the items." The opinion, and reluctance to correct the opinion, due to $$ considerations says the system is corrupt and bad.

That the T206 Wagner still has a PSA 8 label is all you have to know. Everyone knows it's not a PSA 8-- Mastro said that he himself trimmed it, and that card is trimmed has been the hobby's worst kept secret for years. The "opinion" is not about facts or accuracy or truth, it's about money.

However, the grading and authentication companies explicitly state that they are only giving imperfect and fallible opinions. If buyers and sellers treat an opinion as more than that that's the buyers' and sellers' fault. Collectors can't logically and with straight faces treat grades as 'written in stone' while resubmitting cards to get different grades.