Do I Remove Fake Ty Cobb Autograph From Genuine Hughie Jennings Signed Bat??
 

I'm in a bit of a dilemna. I recently purchased a Hughie Jennings autographed bat circa 1910's. The Hughie Jennings was deemed genuine, however the Ty Cobb, Oscar Stanage, Donie Bush and 2 others were deemed "clubhouse". I'm a collector of T206 player game-used bats. My question is: Do I (profesionally) remove the clubhouse signatures, just leaving the Hughie Jennings? Or do I leave it as-is? A recent review by James Spence has also determined that the Jennings signature is authentic, while the others are indeed clubhouse. Any opinions would be appreciated. I'm leaning toward having them removed....

http://huntauctions.com/phone/img124/121.jpg

If it were mine, I would leave it as-is.

Keep it as is. You never know, in a few years they might become genuine again! :D

I also vote that you leave it alone.

It was still signed in the clubhouse and that adds something over a standard fake. If it was signed by someone in his garage in Queens in the 90s then I would vote to have them removed. Plus, if you aren't 100% sure what you want to do right now remember that you can always remove them later but you can never put them back.

Dumb question - but what is a "Clubhouse Signature"?

thanks

Leave it as is....Jimmy Spence is not infallible.

Cool. Thanks everyone. I'll leave it be. A "clubhouse signature" is a signature usually done by a batboy or clubhouse attendant with ZERO malicious attempt. For example, Babe Ruth sometimes had a clubhouse attendant sign his name to baseballs to keep up with the demand for his autograph. Usually done in the same style of an original autograph, but obviously apparent as "not real" to an autograph collector.

pictures?

A clubhouse signature was not signed by the actual player, but by someone affiliated with the team who learned how to duplicate each of the player's signatures. This was commonly done when the actual player was not available to sign.

Somebody already answered this. Sorry for the duplication.

Click the link above

Leave it as is. James Spence isn't always right. He shouldn't be depended on to be the last word in signatures and autographs. It's an "opinion", and sometimes (actually many times) I'd have to believe those opinoins are not correct.

If they're true period signatures then removing the signatures would only lessen the overall appeal of the bat.

Thanks all appreciate it. From the scans the Cobb looks waaaaay off. The Donie Bush looks ok to me...

Please post pictures over on the autograph forum. I'd be curious what people thing of the jennings auto. If jsa thinks all others are fake, then why is the jennings different? Also I've never seen clubhouse autos in the 1910s.

I look at it this way: the bat presents really well, it's a nice bat and it's got Hugh Jennings' signature on it.

If you spent the money to have the bad signatures professionally removed, you'd have a nice bat that presents really well, with Hugh Jennings' signature on it. And you'd be a little lighter in the wallet.

In other words, I'd leave it as-is. It's a nice bat.

-Al

The bat says Scott.....how is it Hughie Jennings game used?

yeah lets see some more pics!

It's not game used by Jennings. It says SCOTT on the barrel. Pics can be located in the first post. I haven't received the bat yet but will post more pics when it's in hand.

I would probably leave it as it is. One thing you may wish to consider: This was signed with some steel tipped writing instrument. The merely signing of the names on the wood would (?!-!!) leave an indentation. Even if you could find someone to remove the ink there would still be 'ghost' signatures visible in the varnish. If someone were to try to then remove the varnish to smooth out the wood and blend new varnish back into the original there would be a chance they could damage the Jennings signature. Probably a small chance, but worth considering.

Tough to tell much from that photo, but signing a bat with a steel-tip pen was probably more difficult than writing on a flat surface or on a baseball. I would be curious to see an example or two of Cobb's autograph on a bat. Could be you found a real gem.

"Description: Early c.1910s Louisville Slugger professional model/quality bat (dash-dot-dash centerbrand) with apparent Hugh Jennings signature (see description) (EX) Louisville Slugger hand turned bat measuring 34.25" long weighs 32oz with "Scott" name block lettered into the barrel end. Mild usage wear is evident throughout with some handle tape remaining and scattered surface wear. "Signed" throughout are vintage fountain pen "signatures" from members of the 1916-17 Detroit Tigers. The bat was initially sold at auction in 2001 with a PSA/DNA auction house LOA which infers that all are authentic (autographs include Ty Cobb, Hugh Jennings, Donie Bush, Bob Veach, Oscar Stanage, and Ralph Young rating 5/6-7 out of 10 - Stanage and Young lesser at 1-3). A more recent review by James Spence has resulted in his opinion that the Jennings signature is authentic, others are clubhouse, and that there are possibly removals: EX" Auction House Description.

Cobb was deemed authenticate at one point so maybe it still is?

My initial thought was "I can understand a clubhouse signature of Ty Cobb, but why would there be (period) clubhouse signatures of Oscar Stanage and Donie Bush?"

Sounds like a good question for Spence. Does he have examples of club house signatures of all these different players? This is why I have a hard time relying on these "experts" when it comes to signatures. Not just Spence, but all of them. I sure would like to read the writeup that was provided by Spence on this. It would be entertaining.

Brendan, there wouldn't be. My guess is that once we get a clear look at each signature, some will feel that either all are good or all or bad. Given that Stanage and Bush are on it, I would guess 'all good'. That wooden bat could have had a rough surface when these guys were trying to sign it, it could have been held in a way that made signing difficult, etc.

Scott, I will post pics once the bat arrives. You are correct in that I took a shot in ALL of the signatures being legit. From the brief scans that I have, the Donie Bush looks fairly accurate. And at one time, ALL of the autos were deemed to be authentic. But I will post pics once received.

That is the bat. Correct!

Why the change 13 years later for the same authenticator?

Warning: I have out my special opener for the nastier cans of worms.

My understanding is that some auction houses do not give their authenticator the original LOA, even if it is the same authenticator - they only give him the item. Is it possible the authenticator forgot how he had originally authenticated the item?

I know, it sounds very improbable, but that's what I have been told.

I wonder if the authenticator is presented with this after the fact, as to determine why the mistake was initially made (if the initial was the incorrect one).

Leave it alone

This bat is in a article on haul of shame.

What I find interesting is that Hugh Jennings generally had a much different autograph on a baseball than on a flat surface. His signature on a baseball tended to be more of a print style, especially with his "J" (several players did this back in the day) for the exact reason already mentioned... signing a round baseball is difficult with a steel tipped fountain pen. Logic would tell you that signing a bat would be equally difficult so I wonder why he would sign in this style here as well. Just a thought.

Bat still not received yet. Will post detailed pictures once received.

He wasn't drunk?

Bat in hand. Here are some close up pictures. I'm a novice when it comes to autographs, but the Donie Bush looks good to me, the Ty Cobb looks bad, the Hughie Jennings has some things that I like, the Oscar Stanage is tough to read, and the others, well.... I've included detailed pics of the bat including 3 on the other side which state "Detroit Base Ball Club". Again, may be wishful thinking, but I believe it is a little more difficult to sign a bat. I also have in hand the 2001 PSA/DNA letter of auth from James Spence claiming the ALL of the autos are authentic. Any help will be appreciated! Thanks!

Any input?

I'm no expert but looks to me like same person who signed Cobb's name signed Jennings too.

Why not post it in the autograph section.

Clubhouse?
 

The only clubhouse that bat was signed in would be the Little Rascals. 100% no good, it's fake. Get your money back.

Even the Hughie Jennings? Although James Spence in 2001 said that ALL were good in the COA, he subsequently followed up with another COA this year that states that ONLY the Hughie Jennings is authentic...

PM sent, as I don't feel like doing battle publicly today :)

I don't care what anyone says, the thought that one super-old auto would be good while the rest fake (or even "clubhouse" on an unusual item such as this) strains credibility much too far for my liking.

Yes Brendan none of them are good. Jason Duncan says is not an autograph person but has good instincts. It is in fact all signed by the same person and that is obvious. This is a forgery and not a great one. Someone took a flea market bat and added these signatures. Do you realize how amazing a signed bat of these players would be ? Probably 10-15k. And a Jennings signed bat with or without clubhouse signatures is an incredible piece. I've never even seen Jennings on a bat that I can recall. But worst of all this whole thing of calling modern forged items "clubhouse" has got to stop.

Fake fake fake
 

Yes Brendan none of them are good. Jason Duncan says is not an autograph person but has good instincts. It is in fact all signed by the same person and that is obvious. This is a forgery and not a great one. Someone took a flea market bat and added these signatures. Do you realize how amazing a signed bat of these players would be ? Probably 10-15k. And a Jennings signed bat with or without clubhouse signatures is an incredible piece. I've never even seen Jennings on a bat that I can recall. But worst of all this whole thing of calling modern forged items "clubhouse" has got to stop.

Thanks Josh. I really appreciate your feedback (and your auction house. It is my favorite. I've picked up many nice pieces recently!). While I cannot disagree with your opinion on the autographs since I am by no means an autograph expert, I will state with certainty that this is not a "flea market bat". I will post pics on the autograph side and ask for opinions there from some of the big boys. It has been suggested by some people behind the scenes that these could all be authentic; it just may have been difficult to sign autographs on a different medium (such as a bat). BUT, with that being said, I hate to sound like someone trying to convince others that Shoeless Joe Jackson (and other rare HOFers) are in every picture out there. If they are forgeries I will simply ask for my money back, no hard feelings, end of story. I'm not trying to convince anyone; the bat isn't going anywhere soon. But thanks again for your input (twice haha)!

Brendan