Shoeless Joe Jackson Auto- Fake?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

These are the main points for me...

Thank you for taking the time to spell out your arguments. I said earlier that you hadn't provided any good arguments for why this signature is fake. After reading your post, I still stand by that statement. Nearly every single claim you made is false, in my opinion. I have responded to each claim below with specific examples of his signatures that clearly refute these claims.

Originally Posted by ThomasL

1 Signature is too large – yes this matter a lot as Jackson signed documents and one paper alongside other signers, he had the opportunity and a visual example right there to write bigger and still chose to write very small. He chose to write small so this would be the only time he ever he wrote a jumbo signature

People sign their names in various sizes all the time. When you have limited space to sign in, it should be expected that a signature would be smaller, and when space is not a factor, it makes sense that it would be larger. Regardless, your claim that this signature is larger than his other known signatures simply isn't true. His signatures vary in size. Just look at the signature on his South Carolina driver's license below. It's almost the same size as the one in the photo despite the spacing being limited on it. You can get a good reference for their relative sizes by measuring the signature widths against the PSA labels in both images. Both signatures are very close in width to their respective labels, which are the same size.

Originally Posted by ThomasL

2 Never signed a photo before or after this one and he had many 5x7 photos later in life he would give out for autograph requests…all signed by his wife.

How could you possibly know this to be true? Perhaps he never signed another photo that has been authenticated by PSA or JSA, but that doesn't mean he never signed photos. And even if it were true, that doesn't imply, or even suggest, that this one is fake.

Originally Posted by ThomasL

3 Signature is too smooth and flows too well for Jackson – While it looks shaky, compared to his other signature it is not shaky like they are (the Js in particular).

You say that, yet we have clear examples where his signature was not very labored. This one below, from a 1916 voucher, is less labored than the one in the 1911 photo.

Originally Posted by ThomasL

4 Lack of obvious hesitation points throughout or large ink pools – Jackson could hardly write his own name and as you can see in most of his other signature he stops and starts a lot which leaves hesitation points and larger paths of ink. This one doesn’t have those

There are multiple points of hesitation on this signature. Look at the top of the first 'J', multiple points of the first 'o', the top right of the 'e', the bottom left of the 'c', the base of the 'k'. These are all points where the ink is darker that sure look like hesitation points to me. This aspect looks no different than any of his other signatures. And do you really think both PSA and JSA would have overlooked such a simple and obvious giveaway like this if so? Also, if Joe didn't write it, then it was certainly someone attempting to duplicate his labored signature. Would you not expect someone forging a labored signature to not also leave the same hesitation marks? They'd me making intentional pauses so as to look labored, would they not?

Originally Posted by ThomasL

5 The Js don’t match at all…too loopy, the space in between the loops too big, no shakiness or hesitation points or what I call dimples in the top left side of

The 'J' on the left looks pointy to me. Regardless, he has some fairly loopy J's in his other signatures too. Here are a few shown along with the one from the 1911 photo for comparison. Note the one in the middle row has a fairly large loopy 'J' that is difficult to see because the ink was dry on it, but if you zoom in close you can definitely see it, it's pretty loopy.

Originally Posted by ThomasL

the Js end with a big tail up and to the left almost as high as the top of the J. All of which is inconsistent with his other signatures

You say that, yet we have these... All of which show the tail of one of the J's going up nearly to the top of the loop. How is this inconsistent?

Originally Posted by ThomasL

6 space between Joe and Jackson is very large compared to other signatures

Again, you say that, yet, we have these... Note, the spacing between letters in his signatures is wildly inconsistent. But there are multiple examples of both cramped letters and widely separated letters in his signatures.

Originally Posted by ThomasL

7 the A and the C don’t have the same bottom to them here, A has a slight point and the C is curved, whereas if you look at other signatures the A and the C match each other (either both curved or both a slight point)

I'll refrain from reposting the images again, but just look above. Several of these have either a pointyish 'a' and a more curved 'c' or vice versa. Regardless, by your own statement, you admit that he is capable of signing both the 'a' and the 'c' as being either pointy or curved.

Originally Posted by ThomasL

8 the “cks” section: Jackson’s C kind of hangs over the K or looks like chasing it like it is trying to eat it (pacman), this photo it is not doing that; in his other signatures the C and K are generally at the same level at their high points and they are not here as the K is much taller;

Yet, we have these, each showing a much taller 'k' than the 'c'.

Originally Posted by ThomasL

the K is closed at the bottom with a loop upward and an ending that looks nothing like his other signatures; the bottom of the S has the same kind of bottom that dips down then back up, this also is not consistent with other Jackson signatures

I agree. The 'k' looks more "completed" on this 1911 photo than it does in the other handful of known signatures we have here.

Originally Posted by ThomasL

9 the ending: majority of his other signatures end with a downward stroke with some ending with a straight/even stroke. This one has an obvious up stroke

Again, you say that, yet, we have these, all showing an upward tail at the end...