Shoeless Joe Jackson Auto- Fake?

[packs]

That's really not how things are supposed to be done though. And I think that's my issue overall with this piece. Provenance should not matter one iota when it comes to authentication. We are all conditioned not to believe grandpa's attic story. It should either be authentic or not authentic or an opinion can't be rendered and that conclusion should be made based on what you're looking at.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

That's really not how things are supposed to be done though. And I think that's my issue overall with this piece. Provenance should not matter one iota when it comes to authentication. We are all conditioned not to believe grandpa's attic story. It should either be authentic or not authentic or an opinion can't be rendered and that conclusion should be made based on what you're looking at.

So if there was a film of Jackson signing it you would disregard that because provenance is irrelevant? OK. Does your view also apply to all forms of memorabilia or just autographs?

[Republicaninmass]

Oh well if he was illiterate, his signature would likely change size and shape every time. Abnormally so if he had to really concentrate.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So if there was a film of Jackson signing it you would disregard that because provenance is irrelevant? OK. Does your view also apply to all forms of memorabilia or just autographs?

Just autographs. And no, a video wouldn't suffice. That would be a pretty easy way to scam people, no?

But the same issues with weighing provenance plague memorabilia. I remember someone telling a story about a player selling milestone home run balls two or three times over saying a different ball was the home run ball every time. They were supposed to be real because of the provenance. But they weren't.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Just autographs. And no, a video wouldn't suffice. That would be a pretty easy way to scam people, no?

But the same issues with weighing provenance plague memorabilia. I remember someone telling a story about a player selling milestone home run balls two or three times over saying a different ball was the home run ball every time. They were supposed to be real because of the provenance. But they weren't.

As we've seen, at least sometimes authenticating a signature is not always perfectly straightforward. It seems to me to be crazy to say provenance is always irrelevant. Sure, it may not be conclusive, it may be flawed, but surely it should be considered when available and given whatever weight is appropriate. The fact that you can identify an example of bad provenance doesn't argue for throwing out all provenance IMO.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by packs

Just autographs. And no, a video wouldn't suffice. That would be a pretty easy way to scam people, no?

But the same issues with weighing provenance plague memorabilia. I remember someone telling a story about a player selling milestone home run balls two or three times over saying a different ball was the home run ball every time. They were supposed to be real because of the provenance. But they weren't.

I don't recall home run balls, but I had heard that about Pete Rose and bats from a bunch of hits leading up to the record.

Home run balls wouldn't be impossible though, and it wouldn't surprise me.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by packs

That's really not how things are supposed to be done though. And I think that's my issue overall with this piece. Provenance should not matter one iota when it comes to authentication. We are all conditioned not to believe grandpa's attic story. It should either be authentic or not authentic or an opinion can't be rendered and that conclusion should be made based on what you're looking at.

Agreed, but the problem is no one is still alive today that was on hand to see the item being signed, as is the case with most items from so long ago. And many people hope and want to believe that items were used, belonged to, and signed by certain people from the past. So even though there often isn't first hand verification of such, the provenance becomes a huge factor in determing if many items were actually signed, owned, used by the party they are purported to be.

In the case of autographs, the only way to truly be 100% certain it was signed by the person in question is if you witnessed it being signed yourself. Absent that, there is no 100% certainty, and thus you are forced to consider other factors, such as provenance surrounding such items and the circumstances of their being signed. This is done to determine where on the scale of 0% - 100% the consensus opinion of the public ends up falling as to the authenticity of an autograph. And it is the public at large that really ends up determining if an autograph is authentic or not. The opinions of so called "experts", just like the provenance and other known factors surrounding an autographed item, are simply contributing factors used by the public to decide for themselves if they will accept an alleged autograph is authentic, or not. And in the case of this alleged Jackson autograph it is never more true as you have "experts" giving completely opposite opinions, making other factors such as provenance, all the more important in shaping final public opinion.

And don't discount the fact that the public sees someone pony up $1.4M for the item, and a very large portion become swayed and lean towards thinking no one in their right mind would pay that kind of money for something that wasn't authentic. That in and of itself goes a long way for saying it is a legit auto, and has already been accepted as such by a large part of the collecting public, regardless of what any of us think or say on here.

[packs]

Totally agree but I also think it's important to remember authentication is an opinion and will always be. I'm not asking anyone to find a way to create fact out of something you can't know.

I do think there are instances, like this one, where an opinion should not be given one way or the other. But I do think it's appropriate for a buyer to hear the story associated with an item and make their own decision. I just don't think that story should be taken as fact by the authenticator no matter how trustworthy the source. And I don't say that because people shouldn't be believed. I say that because the opinion is supposed to be unbiased and about the item being examined.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by packs

Totally agree but I also think it's important to remember authentication is an opinion and will always be. I'm not asking anyone to find a way to create fact out of something you can't know.

I do think there are instances, like this one, where an opinion should not be given one way or the other. But I do think it's appropriate for a buyer to hear the story associated with an item and make their own decision. I just don't think that story should be taken as fact by the authenticator no matter how trustworthy the source. And I don't say that because people shouldn't be believed. I say that because the opinion is supposed to be unbiased and about the item being examined.

You are right, but the problem is that there is always going to be some level of bias, no matter what anyone says or does. And I also said the "experts" only give opinions, just as you're saying. And that is also why it is the public that decides if they'll accept something as authentic or not. And the public taking into consideration the overt and hidden biases that may exist in opinions and stories around an item are all just part of the process, and can be wrong or right. I think that a large part of the public itself wants to believe rare items and autos are real and do exist, and because of that can thus possibly add an additional bias on top of everything else.

Here's what I'm 100% certain of when it comes to autographs, that there are many autographs out there that are deemed fakes, but in actuality are real, and there are also many that are recognized as real that are actually fakes.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobC

Here's what I'm 100% certain of when it comes to autographs, that there are many autographs out there that are deemed fakes, but in actuality are real, and there are also many that are recognized as real that are actually fakes.

+1

This is why I have never collected autographs and never will. I can't imagine the feeling I'd have, to build a nice collection of vintage signatures, but always knowing that some percentage of them were, in fact, fakes. Further, not knowing which ones they were.

Look at how many times people post on the autograph forum asking if a signature is good, and some respond "yes" and some "no." It isn't enough to just say: "Know what you are buying," or: "Only buy from trusted sources." With autographs, establishing authenticity is often impossible.

Cards may be altered and GU jerseys or bats might be restored, but at least their authenticity is usually easy to determine.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mark17

+1

This is why I have never collected autographs and never will. I can't imagine the feeling I'd have, to build a nice collection of vintage signatures, but always knowing that some percentage of them were, in fact, fakes. Further, not knowing which ones they were.

Look at how many times people post on the autograph forum asking if a signature is good, and some respond "yes" and some "no." It isn't enough to just say: "Know what you are buying," or: "Only buy from trusted sources." With autographs, establishing authenticity is often impossible.

Cards may be altered and GU jerseys or bats might be restored, but at least their authenticity is usually easy to determine.

Unless of course you get autographs signed in person yourself. That way you know they're legit.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobC

Unless of course you get autographs signed in person yourself. That way you know they're legit.

You do. The next owner of it doesn't.

And that doesn't work for the vintage guys, regardless.