Shoeless Joe Jackson Auto- Fake?

[Peter_Spaeth]

I've seen so many (alleged) mistakes by JSA (read about them, not witnessed personally) that that doesn't do much for me.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I've seen so many (alleged) mistakes by JSA (read about them, not witnessed personally) that that doesn't do much for me.

I can't speak to the authority of anyone specific in the authentication space. I just don't know enough about it. But I do believe there should be room for human error when it comes to expectations for something like this, but people often don't want to lend it.

I'm reminded of the late 90s and early 2000s when Sony dominated the electronics market, becoming the top seller of TVs by a fairly wide margin. If you were to go into a TV repair shop and ask them which TVs they spent the most time repairing, every single one of them would have answered "Sony". The number of complaints began to mount, and Sony eventually began to garner a reputation for selling poorly made TVs. However, the actual defect rates were better than the competition, but since Sony dominated the market, they also dominated the repair market, causing a major hit to their reputation.

PSA and JSA dominate the authentication market, so it would make sense for them to also dominate the "oops, we fucked up" market as well. The number that ultimately should matter most is one that is nearly impossible for us to get, which is the ratio of correctly authenticated items to incorrectly authenticated items. I don't know how many mistakes we should expect to see from them, but I do know that whatever the number is, it's always going to be too high for some significant percentage of collectors.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I get that but at the same time, on many of these items if I recall correctly, other people pointed to obvious issues which made the errors seem really egregious. And these items supposedly are rigorously scrutinized individually. I don't think that's quite analogous to an inevitable flaw rate in mass production or even the PSA assembly line.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I've seen so many (alleged) mistakes by JSA (read about them, not witnessed personally) that that doesn't do much for me.

https://thecollectorconnection.com/b...x?itemid=21487

"JSA Mistakenly identifies coach George Jendrus Anderson as HOF'er George "Sparky" Anderson who was only 14 years old in 1948 and 10 years away from his major league debut."

Of course if they have the wrong George Anderson how the hell did they authenticate the autograph?

EDIT: This was a mistake and my apologies to JSA. This is a PSA authenticated piece, NOT JSA.

[ThomasL]

TPA do turn away good autographs I know for a fact...Im sure there are several stories like this out there and I dont remember which company he submitted to, but this is a story a friend of mine related to me:

He would attend New York Yankee spring training almost every year in the 60s-70s era and had tons of autographs of those players he got in person including many Thurman Munson signatures...every one of those Munson sigs he sent in was rejected.

I have no doubt JSA makes mistakes but I personally think they make less and I believe are the preferred authenticator of REA which I love as an auction house (they treat people right)...Beckett is the worst at autographs...PSA might be a little better after Keating joined them...but they have a bad track record.

Obviously a big problem for them all is that they like have authenticated bad signatures when they first started, or assumed a signature was authentic that might have sold in a high profile auction (Barry Halper) that wasnt and those are examples they use in their databases. They need to go back and reevaluate and purge bad and questionable signatures from their files...I dont know if they do this or not but they should, it would help.

The some of the best advice I got about collecting autographs is if it makes you feel bad or you question it in any way...dont buy it

[ThomasL]

also would share this story:

I have bought 2 Happy Felsch signatures that I submitted and were rejected by JSA, one I thought was questionable and likely fake (came with a money back guarantee) and one that I think was 100% authentic but was signed on a dark part of a newspaper picture so hard to see. Believe I got my money back on both but obviously lost out on the fees for submission.

I have never submitted to PSA, though I think I would knowing Keating is on their team now which helps, and never will submit to Beckett. Honestly I prefer that an authenticator errs on the side of caution, sure they will fail authentic signatures some times but they will also filter out the fakes more often than not...just my opinion on it and this like everything else is very debatable.

But if a collector is knowledgeable, has a good eye and is 100% comfortable with a signature Im in the camp of dont waste your money bc you probably know better than any TPA....if you are looking to sell unfortunately that goes out the window now unless you are one of a handful of dealers known inside the collector's universe

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

I have no doubt JSA makes mistakes but I personally think they make less and I believe are the preferred authenticator of REA which I love as an auction house (they treat people right)

JSA is known to authenticate items at shows without watching the signings as long as you bought the ticket. So you could swap items with no problem, if you chose.

They also authenticated the T206s outed on this board in Sharpie marker.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=262673 But then, so did SGC and one got through PSA as well.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

https://thecollectorconnection.com/b...x?itemid=21487

"JSA Mistakenly identifies coach George Jendrus Anderson as HOF'er George "Sparky" Anderson who was only 14 years old in 1948 and 10 years away from his major league debut."

Of course if they have the wrong George Anderson how the hell did they authenticate the autograph?

If a data scientist who claims he does not know enough about the authentication space can give the thumbs up on the Jax then JSA surely can. After all, there should be room for human error....i.e. guessing or just taking a leap of faith based on a story or provenance.

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

If a data scientist who claims he does not know enough about the authentication space can give the thumbs up on the Jax then JSA surely can. After all, there should be room for human error....i.e. guessing or just taking a leap of faith based on a story or provenance.

To be correct, they mistakenly say JSA wrongly identified Anderson. The link shows PSA/DNA to be the authentication culprit making the mistake based on the pictures of the item.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by rand1com

To be correct, they mistakenly say JSA wrongly identified Anderson. The link shows PSA/DNA to be the authentication culprit making the mistake based on the pictures of the item.

Crap I'm an idiot. My apologies to JSA. Will fix the auction listing for posterity and will ADD the apology to all of my posts in this thread dealing with this piece.

It's not even a Spence era PSA piece, don't know what I was looking at.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

If a data scientist who claims he does not know enough about the authentication space can give the thumbs up on the Jax then JSA surely can. After all, there should be room for human error....i.e. guessing or just taking a leap of faith based on a story or provenance.

Since you clearly care most about my opinion in this thread, allow me to correct it for you. As I stated above, by just looking at the autograph and photo, I think Peter's stance of remaining agnostic is the best position to take. Note that a position of agnosticism would prevent it from being authenticated. I only stated that I lean towards it likely being authentic, not that I think it definitely is. But in large part, my inclination to think it is more likely authentic than not has much to do with the fact that both PSA and JSA authenticated it. I trust their opinions more than I do the opinions of a handful of collectors on the internet despite the fact that I fully acknowledge and expect that the experts will offer incorrect opinions a fair percentage of the time.

Regardless, you should continue to ridicule and berate me. It's a good look. People love reading that stuff.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Since you clearly care most about my opinion in this thread, allow me to correct it for you. As I stated above, by just looking at the autograph and photo, I think Peter's stance of remaining agnostic is the best position to take. Note that a position of agnosticism would prevent it from being authenticated. I only stated that I lean towards it likely being authentic, not that I think it definitely is. But in large part, my inclination to think it is more likely authentic than not has much to do with the fact that both PSA and JSA authenticated it. I trust their opinions more than I do the opinions of a handful of collectors on the internet despite the fact that I fully acknowledge and expect that the experts will offer incorrect opinions a fair percentage of the time.

Regardless, you should continue to ridicule and berate me. It's a good look. People love reading that stuff.

When it comes to cards I like my own opinion on authenticity. Since, like you, I know next to nothing about the auto authentication space but know it is affiliated with the same inept and corrupt companies who slab tons of bad cards I do put weight into what a handful of collectors...collectively think...especially when what they think is well thought through and articulated. And in this case there is more than enough info having been provided that would have been enough for me to pass if I were in the market.

Ridiculing and berating? Nah you will know when I am doing that. Just bothered by your contrarian know it all attitude. I will try to do better.

[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.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

When it comes to cards I like my own opinion on authenticity. Since, like you, I know next to nothing about the auto authentication space but know it is affiliated with the same inept and corrupt companies who slab tons of bad cards I do put weight into what a handful of collectors...collectively think...especially when what they think is well thought through and articulated. And in this case there is more than enough info having been provided that would have been enough for me to pass if I were in the market.

Ridiculing and berating? Nah you will know when I am doing that. Just bothered by your contrarian know it all attitude. I will try to do better.

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. 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. 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!

Oh, and 'know-it-all' is hyphenated.

[rats60]

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. 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. 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!

Oh, and 'know-it-all' is hyphenated.

No one has refuted any of the arguments. They just disagreed.