Shoeless Joe Jackson Auto- Fake?

[AMPduppp]

Not sure if anyone else saw this, but saw this on Twitter last night and decided to share.

According to the Shoeless Joe Jackson Museum, the 1911 autographed photo that recently sold at Christie's for $1.47mil is a fake auto.

Link to Twitter thread where the Museum alleges it's fake: https://twitter.com/shoelessmuseum/s...96932864663567

PSA authenticated it as well. Huge implications if it's true.

[jason.1969]

Dan’s opinion is one to be trusted. Someone paid a shitload of money for a cool photo with pen marks on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mrreality68]

We were all discussing this on the thread Christie’s Auction Today”

However, did not see this particular info on Twitter or in the news.

Just saw all over USA Today, ESPN, etc reporting it as a record sale for the most paid for an autographed photo.

The plot thickens and we shall see what happens or does not happen in the coming days

[swarmee]

What would happen? PSA doesn't have an autograph authentication guarantee.

There was an entire episode of Strange Inheritance concerning the authentication of this autograph and the rest of the group.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypT67jdK6wU

[SteveS]

It's interesting that the museum said they would have bid on it had they thought it was legit. So they had the belief before the auction that it was fake. Of course they are under no obligation to inform the auction house of their concerns, but it would be interesting to know whether or not they did convey that information pre-auction. It just seems very difficult to be absolutely sure either way on a Shoeless Joe auto.

[ThomasL]

SteveS- this is not the first time this has been sold and when it hit the market the first time many experts chimed in that it was fake and believe told the auction house (cant remember which one) and it did no good

There was a big article on it back then but cant seem to find it now...maybe the Hauls of Shame covered it if memory serves me...

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by SteveS

It's interesting that the museum said they would have bid on it had they thought it was legit. So they had the belief before the auction that it was fake. Of course they are under no obligation to inform the auction house of their concerns, but it would be interesting to know whether or not they did convey that information pre-auction. It just seems very difficult to be absolutely sure either way on a Shoeless Joe auto.

Agreed. IT is interesting that it sold in Heritage Auction in 2015 and sold for I believe $179K so it has been around
Surprised that the Museum waiting until After the Auction to comment on it being fake.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by AMPduppp

PSA authenticated it as well. Huge implications if it's true.

You mean, like, they don't know what they are doing, and arguably never have, starting with the first opinion they aver sold?

[jason.1969]

My sense of the Hobby these days is that many if not most high dollar collectors become more infatuated with slabs than what’s inside them. Good chance the buyer could care less about true authenticity.

[jason.1969]

Question about how the authentication business works? When the owner or AH sends an item like this to PSA, how much does PSA make if deemed authentic vs deemed not authentic or inconclusive? Is there significant financial incentive to authenticate positively?

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

Question about how the authentication business works? When the owner or AH sends an item like this to PSA, how much does PSA make if deemed authentic vs deemed not authentic or inconclusive? Is there significant financial incentive to authenticate positively?

There is not. PSA makes the same money if they deem it fake. The difference is they might lose customers down the line if they fail too many.

I've already pointed out some obvious autograph fakes that PSA authenticated, and I'm not really a hand-writing analyst or anything. The signatures were spelled wrong. I figure that's a solid giveaway.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by swarmee

The signatures were spelled wrong. I figure that's a solid giveaway.

You'd think, but it's not always a guarantee that the items in question aren't authentic. While in most cases your logic would prove accurate, there will always be exceptions to anything. A couple of examples come immediately to mind, among others:

--During his career, Claude Passeau would on rare occasion sign his surname "Passo". Same with Reggie Jackson ("Reggie Jax") and Nino Bongiovanni ("Nino
Bongy").

--Very early on, Willie Mays signed "William Mays" in spite of his birth name actually being Willie by all accounts.

--Satchel Paige initially spelled his nickname with two l's before updating it to a single l. There seemed to be a brief crossover period where both variations were employed.

--President Andrew Johnson misspelled his own surname "Johson" when signing his own marriage documentation.

--With infirmities of age, a person can occasionally slip up and miss a letter or two, as is evidenced by examples I've received over the years from older players. One good friend, signing what was likely his last autograph for me shortly before he died, actually signed a baseball "Geo." as opposed to his actual name of Joe. He was pushing 100 and unfortunately confused. He knew what he was writing was incorrect but was powerless to change it. This upset him greatly. I was on hand to witness this.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

You'd think, but it's not always a guarantee that the items in question aren't authentic. While in most cases your logic would prove accurate, there will always be exceptions to anything.

Here are the ones I was talking about. From a lot of mostly fraudulent IP autographs that got certified by PSA. Likely to be different authenticators, but just goes to show the inaccuracy of the medium or training of the employees.
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showth...ighlight=swift

And then there are the many errors of cards that were autographed and witnessed that PSA failed to authenticate. But most would rather them err on failing autographs rather than passing them.

[swarmee]

I think it would be interesting to see if PSA is going to use AI in the future to help authenticate autographs. If so, would this one pass at that time?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by swarmee

There is not. PSA makes the same money if they deem it fake. The difference is they might lose customers down the line if they fail too many.

I've already pointed out some obvious autograph fakes that PSA authenticated, and I'm not really a hand-writing analyst or anything. The signatures were spelled wrong. I figure that's a solid giveaway.

True story, friend went to some show/event where Dimaggio was signing to get an autographed baseball. He misspelled his last name.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by BobC

True story, friend went to some show/event where Dimaggio was signing to get an autographed baseball. He misspelled his last name.

Not the only time this happened with Joe. There's a 1941 Play Ball card out there where he misspelled his name. It was sold at auction several years ago.

[packs]

No disrespect to any one company but there really is no reason to authenticate or give your opinion on a Joe Jackson autograph unless it appears on a legal document. His inability to write his name is well known to the extent that it is mentioned in auction descriptions. There is no possible way, in my opinion, for anyone to authenticate his signature unless it is known conclusively that he wrote it, i.e. drivers licenses and other legally binding or official capacity items.

No matter what anyone says I do not believe that it is possible to differentiate between something that might be signed by an illiterate man from something that definitely was, other than you know for certain the circumstances surrounding the definitive example.

In all other cases, like with a supposedly signed photo, no opinion should be rendered and the item should not be accepted for examination. I doubt very strongly that any TPA has a wealth of experience authenticating the signatures of illiterate people.

[jason.1969]

My read of several comments is that the opinions of people who are not handwriting experts are to be taken with a grain of salt. Is there any reason to believe Steve Grad or the people at PSA/DNA have such training?

[jason.1969]

Regarding the provenance, I’ve read that the couple who sold the scrapbook to Bowen was “friends with Frank Smith’s family.”

Obviously anyone can make this claim. Is it fair to assume that part of authenticating the “only signed photo of Jackson in existence” involves verifying this claim? Or was it simply the case that having a scrapbook of Smith photos and living in the CLE area is proof enough of the friendship?

As Joe Orlando says, the job is to be skeptical, so I wonder what evidence here satisfied the skepticism of all involved.

[Mark17]

The photo could've been handed to Joe and he might've said "I'll sign it later," and then had his wife sign it for him.

I've seen a couple glaring examples of "provenance" being given so much weight it was ridiculous. Two examples in the GU arena:

1. Years ago, a major AH had a GU Hank Aaron bat with great provenance. It had come directly from a guy who only played one season in the majors - 1970. He faced Aaron in a game that year, struck him out or something, and after the game, he claims he went to the Braves locker room and Hank gave him the bat. The AH pulled down that "provenance" story when I pointed out the Aaron GU bat was from the 1973-75 labeling period.

2. A former player, having been released towards the end of the season, took with him his jersey and pants, and gifted them to a well known broadcaster. They ended up in an auction earlier this year, which I won. The jersey and pants were graded MEARS 10 attributed to that player, because of that impeccable provenance, and the jersey really is nice. So are the pants, but they are quite clearly tagged as belonging to a different player - a guy who wore the same uniform number for many consecutive years with that same team, who played in almost all of the games that year, The pants have that player's number stitched into them, and the use on the pants is heavy, as would be expected for that guy, who stole bases and was a star player. The fellow they supposedly belonged to, on the other hand, was a relief pitcher who never stole a base in his decade long career. And he also had the same uniform number his entire career with several different teams, and it is not what's in those pants.

What obviously happened is that the player grabbed his shirt, easily identifiable with his big uniform number on the back, and then just grabbed a pair of pants that were the correct size out of a hamper, not caring, or not paying attention to the tagging, to make sure they were actually his. In fact, I'll bet most players never pay attention to uniform tagging to begin with.

So much for provenance. A well told story should never outweigh what an item actually is.

[Peter_Spaeth]

From other exemplars of his wife's signature it seems fairly clear it isn't hers. It's either Jackson or Smith IMO. I suppose it could also be someone who forged his signature much later.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

From other exemplars of his wife's signature it seems fairly clear it isn't hers. It's either Jackson or Smith IMO. I suppose it could also be someone who forged his signature much later.

The exemplar you linked from the REA auction has a "k" unlike anything I've ever seen on a supposedly autographed Jackson item. However, his 1919 contract, which is shown in this thread, and supposedly wife - signed, is reasonably close to Joe's writing. I wonder if the REA wife signature is an outlier, because if that's how she always wrote it, then she didn't sign that 1919 contract, and Joe also must've used someone else's example as a template for drawing his name, because he sure wasn't attempting to match that "k."

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Mark17

The exemplar you linked from the REA auction has a "k" unlike anything I've ever seen on a supposedly autographed Jackson item. However, his 1919 contract, which is shown in this thread, and supposedly wife - signed, is reasonably close to Joe's writing. I wonder if the REA wife signature is an outlier, because if that's how she always wrote it, then she didn't sign that 1919 contract, and Joe also must've used someone else's example as a template for drawing his name, because he sure wasn't attempting to match that "k."

Katie Jackson's signature changed from 1910s to the 40s-50s...most of her examples are from the 40s and 50s filling autograph requests. She was usually present at contract signings with baseball clubs (famously wasnt for Joe's 1920 contract as the story goes and I have not seen his 1920 contact surface...if someone has that picture as an aside to this I would love to see it) That 1919 contract and the 1912 album someone posted here is her signature...

I would have to re-read Gropman's bio of Jackson (he actually interviewed people who knew Joe and his sister was one of them he talked with) but I believe Jackson learned by tracing over what Katie wrote and then copying what Katie wrote until he could do it on his own...so stands to reason there would be some similarities between the two.

As another aside...I think (I could be misremembering this and totally wrong) in the early days of collecting Mrs Jackson's signature was actually thought of as Joe's signature...I dont know when the public and collecting community learned that Katie was who was actually signing items and not Joe...maybe someone on here knows that.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

The exemplar you linked from the REA auction has a "k" unlike anything I've ever seen on a supposedly autographed Jackson item. However, his 1919 contract, which is shown in this thread, and supposedly wife - signed, is reasonably close to Joe's writing. I wonder if the REA wife signature is an outlier, because if that's how she always wrote it, then she didn't sign that 1919 contract, and Joe also must've used someone else's example as a template for drawing his name, because he sure wasn't attempting to match that "k."

Are there examples of a signature believed to be hers with that distinctive "e"? I can't recall now.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Chase, it's not just a handful of collectors, it's experts like Ron Keurajian who have questioned the authenticity. I would tend to trust someone like him on this more than a company like PSA or JSA.
His credentials? the author of two volumes of “Baseball Hall of Fame Autographs: A Reference Guide."
Oh wait, Joe isn't in the Hall, never mind.
I believe someone, probably Thomas, mentioned that Richard Simon (not sure he still posts here) is also skeptical. He always impressed me from afar with his expertise.

Yes there were some great points made on the original thread in 2015 here, as well as this thread and the Blowout thread but that is cowardly groupthink, conformist reasoning! We must discount them entirely.


SNOWMAN MELTDOWN ALERT!!!!!

Originally Posted by Snowman

So, you prefer your own opinion over that of the experts when it comes to authenticating, despite admitting you "know next to nothing" about it.

No you silly boy that is not what I wrote. 3 post grad degrees and yet you continually misread what people write here. Helps a discussion if you are less consumed with your own opinion and actually able to understand someone else's opinion.

Originally Posted by Snowman

Got it. However, you do know enough to know that they are inept. After all, the interwebs told you so. Also, forum groupthink informs you of what opinions you ought to hold.

Yes I know the same companies who encapsulate lots of altered cards employ autograph authenticators who are routinely making errors in their assessments. I never take an authenticated card as being authentic—not until it passes my tests. I would have thought Snowman, the consummate contrarian, would appreciate that I like to think for myself and not fold when presented with a differing view. I guess only you are permitted to oppose other opinions.

Originally Posted by Snowman

Brilliant! Oh, and you think the case made above regarding the Jackson photo was ironclad, despite someone clearly having refuted nearly every argument proposed, one by one, with photo examples. You'll do well here. Keep up the good work!

Again…read, Snowman, read…Maybe you can have your 3 year old show you how to do that? Based on all that has been presented here in 2015, in this thread and on Blowout, I feel there is just enough doubt that I am not comfortable with the authentication on the Jackson. Sorry that you were not able to persuade me given your vast knowledge and experience in the autograph authentication space.

[jason.1969]

Sometimes I wonder how much of the price of 1952 Topps 311 comes from the belief, echoed often in the media, that it’s Mickey Mantle’s rookie card. I believe this is another example (besides the Jackson auto) where the less informed may drive prices more than the better informed.

It’s probably also the classic example of the circular reasoning in the Hobby. Have talked to many collectors who collect Mantle “because his cards are the most expensive.” And needless to say they’ve done well for themselves, at least on paper.

[Peter_Spaeth]

As Wallace Stevens put it,

What we said of it became
A part of what it is.

There is doubtless an Emperor's New Clothes aspect to the hobby.

[jason.1969]

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.

Sounds about right to me. It’s more or less like Angel Hernandez or Laz Diaz calling balls and strikes. The only thing I would question is whether anyone involved in authenticating the Jackson deserves the label “best expert in the world.”

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

Sounds about right to me. It’s more or less like Angel Hernandez or Laz Diaz calling balls and strikes. The only thing I would question is whether anyone involved in authenticating the Jackson deserves the label “best expert in the world.”

Nice.