Shoeless Joe Jackson Auto- Fake?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Snowman

You keep saying that. Perhaps you could share these arguments with the rest of us? It is the purpose of this thread after all.

They have already been shared in this thread.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by rats60

They have already been shared in this thread.

No, he most certainly has not even attempted to make that case here. All he has said was "he was illiterate", and "read the thread from 2015 (which is also completely void of any good arguments)", and "many experts agree", and "the Joe Jackson Museum deserves more respect!", and "snowman is an ignoramus" and other such gems.

I am completely open to arguments as to why this isn't his signature. I have no skin in the game. And my default position on any potential Joe Jackson autograph is that the likelihood of it being a fake is extremely high. I'm looking for the arguments on both sides here, and thus far, the 'nay' side is lacking here in this thread.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snowman

No, he most certainly has not even attempted to make that case here. All he has said was "he was illiterate", and "read the thread from 2015 (which is also completely void of any good arguments)", and "many experts agree", and "the Joe Jackson Museum deserves more respect!", and "snowman is an ignoramus" and other such gems.

I am completely open to arguments as to why this isn't his signature. I have no skin in the game. And my default position on any potential Joe Jackson autograph is that the likelihood of it being a fake is extremely high. I'm looking for the arguments on both sides here, and thus far, the 'nay' side is lacking here in this thread.

Go back and use one of the many post grad degrees you have and read his many comments about the signature. He has actually contributed to this thread unlike someone who is just here to play devil's advocate.

[ThomasL]

Most of this I have already said if you read my posts, some of this I have not posted bc I only thought the strongest point should be made and in an effort to save time and space didn’t feel like getting into the weeds that deep was needed…but here ya go…cant say Im not a good sport even though I don’t like being baited into this (I am not a document expert or authenticator so I guess that can always be thrown out there against my observations which is completely fine)

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

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.

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).

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

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 Js and they 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

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

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)

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; 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

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

These are the main points for me and a document expert can probably pick up on things about the E O and A. I think they are the closest letters made that resemble Jackson’s signature so I left those out.

The logistics of when where and how the photo was signed and the bottom line added also throws doubt on it with me…

So what is GOOD about it: The photo is a period photo and came from a person who would be connected with the Indians. That proves provenance of the photo not the signature. Maybe 3 letters kind of match…so when I say the red flags outweigh the green ones with me that’s what I mean. (I hope more will go into what they feel is good about the signature itself)

Richard Simon and Ron Keurajian are well respected experts who have publicly given their opinions, both said fake, I have private messages from two others (one who does post on here from time to time) that also said it was fake and no Im not going to name them bc if they want to say it publicly that is up to them. This also factors in for me.

The financial gain and pressure to pass this could easily be seen as a motivating factor in pushing it from let’s say “questionable” at best to “authentic” and PSA has passed bad signatures before and turned down good ones before so it is more than reasonable to question their judgement and motives here.

Again this is just my opinion on it and my own analysis of it and I am not a forensic document trained expert (I wouldnt mind being one though and will gladly accept an opportunity to get that training).

Thomas L Saunders
(hope I made sense with this)

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Most of this I have already said if you read my posts, some of this I have not posted bc I only thought the strongest point should be made and in an effort to save time and space didn’t feel like getting into the weeds that deep was needed…but here ya go…cant say Im not a good sport even though I don’t like being baited into this (I am not a document expert or authenticator so I guess that can always be thrown out there against my observations which is completely fine)

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

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.

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).

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

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 Js and they 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

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

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)

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; 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

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

These are the main points for me and a document expert can probably pick up on things about the E O and A. I think they are the closest letters made that resemble Jackson’s signature so I left those out.

The logistics of when where and how the photo was signed and the bottom line added also throws doubt on it with me…

So what is GOOD about it: The photo is a period photo and came from a person who would be connected with the Indians. That proves providence of the photo not the signature. Maybe 3 letters kind of match…so when I say the red flags outweigh the green ones with me that’s what I mean. (I hope more will go into what they feel is good about the signature itself)

Richard Simon and Ron Keurajian are well respected experts who have publicly given their opinions, both said fake, I have private messages from two others (one who does post on here from time to time) that also said it was fake and no Im not going to name them bc if they want to say it publicly that is up to them. This also factors in for me.

The financial gain and pressure to pass this could easily be seen as a motivating factor in pushing it from let’s say “questionable” at best to “authentic” and PSA has passed bad signatures before and turned down good ones before so it is more than reasonable to question their judgement and motives here.

Again this is just my opinion on it and my own analysis of it and I am not a forensic document trained expert (I wouldnt mind being one though and will gladly accept an opportunity to get that training).

Thomas L Saunders
(hope I made sense with this)

Bravo!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Other than that, Thomas, it's good? Thank you for taking the time, very helpful.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Other than that, Thomas, it's good? Thank you for taking the time, very helpful.

I mean it could be real, I think it is possible (very very slim), but I highly doubt it

I will add that this was authenticated before Kevin Keating joined PSA (that might carry some weight with some folks on here)

I personally regard JSA higher than PSA and they also passed it for Heritage according to their description in 2015, I dont know if anyone has pointed that out but should be noted as well and would go in the green flag side you could say. Im sure Spence himself examined it and I would love to hear his breakdown of why he passed it.

Personally I think Frank Smith wrote it all with the intent of creating a facsimile signature and probably had access to something Joe Jackson actually did sign and did his best to replicate it...maybe a 1910 or 1911 contract stored at the stadium or maybe a permission release for use of his image in print (seems reasonable that given 3-4 years of practice he would have been able to write his name by 1911).

But looking at it in person and examining it for sure would help (as would ink analysis) and you have to acknowledge that PSA and JSA had that advantage.

[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...

[ThomasL]

I think the only two points you countered well here were the tall K and to an extent the pacman C (I didnt have those in my file but still majority of time the C has that long hanging top) and the up tail ending sort of...

Of the up tail endings you posted one is a straight line I would say, one slight up tail after a long straight stroke, and one long gradual but obvious. Yet none are done in a sharp quick stroke that matches the short sharp one on the photo.

The other best case you made was smooth signature with one example (where all others arent even close) Yes that one signature (I think a 1916 voucher) it appears smooth compared to his others but it has obvious hesitation points on the Js, e, a and k so not as smooth as this photo (you are wrong about the hesitation points on the photo...maybe one on an O but that;s it...and the Js have zero which is not like his signature)

Sure there could be variations in signatures and no two are the same and all that. But to accept it is authentic means to accept he broke with all of those habits at the same time and only did that in a full signature once in his life....I think it takes a bigger leap of faith to accept that over the likelihood it is not his signature...but thats just me. This one looks nothing like his other signatures BUT you think it does and you are entitled to think whatever you like.

Like I said maybe he signed this photo, an item he never signed ever again and had the opportunity to all the time later in life, in a way and style that he never used ever again.

[perezfan]

Good points made on both sides. Many thanks to both contributors for devoting the time and effort to explain their respective rationales. Some good points made both ways.

I don't think we will ever achieve complete clarity on this one. I lean towards it being not authentic, but you have to allow for significant variance, considering the signer was not even literate. And the photo itself comes with good provenance. Regardless, it seems like a huge price to pay for a piece with such doubt hanging over its head.

But it's not the first time a buyer has paid an ungodly sum, based on optimism or wishful thinking. And it certainly won't be the last!