PAWN STARS Shoeless Joe Jackson signed book...

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Herman Darvick

First of all, my opinion in 1994, and now, is that the Joe Jackson signature is authentic. The "Shoeless Joe Jackson" written on the lower portion of the page was written by the collector to identify who signed it. It was not signed by Mrs. Jackson. It is not in her handwriting and when she signed her husband's name she would sign "Joe Jackson," no "Shoeless." And why didn't Rick call me? I always have my contact info on my COAs. Why didn't he contact an autograph expert? And why not before he pays the guy $13,000? He's contacted his autograph experts for much, much less value. He said he didn't want to lose this guy. He didn't even ask him if he could verify the authenticity of the signature,. He did, however, say that he relied on my COA. Thanks you for that, Rick. But then he goes to Rebecca his book expert at Bauman's Books and asks her about the authenticity of the Joe Jackson autograph. By the way, I have been asked for my opinion about the authenticity of autographs in books numerous times by Bauman Books (not the Las Vegas branch, the main store). Also: You should know by now, that Mike Frost is a habitual liar. I have known him for over 20 years. I did not renew my three year contract with PSA/DNA 3 1/2 years ago, in February 2009, because of exactly what happened here. There were too many mistakes on letters from PSA/DNA with my signature among the authenticators' signatures on the bottom, and that included letters where they said the autograph passed certification. They don't even say who decided it hadn't passed certification. It's one of the group of about 10 names. I no longer wanted to be associated with PSA/DNA and asked that my name not be used on PSA/DNA letters immediately. The Joe Jackson cut signature I sold in 1990 for $23,100 at my public auction was removed from a legal document he signed in the 1930s. It was purchased by Leland's who promptly traded it to Barry Halper. In the signed book, why was the "e" erased and rewritten? Because Joe didn't like the "e" he had signed, erased it, and signed it again. A forger would have to be real dumb to erase a letter and rewrite it. Why was the pressure heavy? Because he hardly ever used a pen and wanted to make sure his signature looked good. I suggest you look at other comments on the authenticity of the Joe Jackson signed book on this site, especially the one on Page 1 from the Shoeless Joe Jackson Virtual Hall of Fame Web Site. Look at the signatures on that website as well and compare it to the one in the book. His 1951 signature on will is here: http://www.blackbetsy.com/jacksonWill.html If you'd like to contact me, my email address is hdarvick@yahoo.com

Herman, Thanks for responding. It is a rare opportunity for insight into an authentication.

I think we all agree, that on any purchase of such magnitude greater diligence is required. Rick, should have at least called you, googled you, (asked a guy on the street, for god's sake) rather than just saying "I never heard of this guy."

I have a question for you on your authentication of this item. how much did the story of who, why, and how this was signed weigh on your decision? I ask this in reference to the erasure, and as importantly, the Shoeless inscription.

Under what circumstances do you feel someone would feel the need to clarify a plainly obvious signature, especially on a book referencing that individual? As far as the erasure, are there other examples of such behavior? This would have had to have been witnessed, noted, and related to someone in order for it to be considered with great weight, would it not? From whom did you receive these bits of info?

I ask these as common sense (to me) issues that I would have asked the authenticator if I were in the position to purchase such a rare artifact.

Jim Marinari

PS. The intelligence or lack therof of forgers can be easily debated in another thread. I have seen a Gehrig signed in sharpie.

[Herman Darvick]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Herman, Thanks for responding. It is a rare opportunity for insight into an authentication.

I think we all agree, that on any purchase of such magnitude greater diligence is required. Rick, should have at least called you, googled you, (asked a guy on the street, for god's sake) rather than just saying "I never heard of this guy."

I have a question for you on your authentication of this item. how much did the story of who, why, and how this was signed weigh on your decision? I ask this in reference to the erasure, and as importantly, the Shoeless inscription.

Under what circumstances do you feel someone would feel the need to clarify a plainly obvious signature, especially on a book referencing that individual? As far as the erasure, are there other examples of such behavior? This would have had to have been witnessed, noted, and related to someone in order for it to be considered with great weight, would it not? From whom did you receive these bits of info?

I ask these as common sense (to me) issues that I would have asked the authenticator if I were in the position to purchase such a rare artifact.

Jim Marinari

PS. The intelligence or lack therof of forgers can be easily debated in another thread. I have seen a Gehrig signed in sharpie.

Jim, I listen to the stories but it doesn't carry any weight if I do not think the signature is authentic. If I think it may be real, the story might help. It would tell me where and when it was signed. I don't remember the story behind the book signing - it was 18 1/2 years ago. Here's an interesting experience I had about 6 or 7 years ago. I was working for an auction house as a writer and was given a Marilyn Monroe Productions check signed in New York in February 1954 (I forget the exact date) to catalogue. The signature looked good and it had passed certification that day by one of the major authenticators who was there that day certifying items in the auction. I'm pretty good at remembering dates. I knew that Marilyn Monroe had married Joe DiMaggio in January 1954. It didn't take long for me to discover that on the date of that check, Marilyn Monroe was in Japan on her honeymoon. Well, maybe she signed a bunch of checks before they left for Japan? Impossible, since Marilyn Monroe Productions was formed on January 1, 1955 (some books say December 31, 1954). My guess is that someone got some blank checks from her estate or her lawyer's estate, and forged Monroe's signature. There was even a light "bank" stamping on verso. It no longer mattered that the signature looked good. The date was the forger's downfall. I'm bringing this up for two reasons. 1. A lot of things go into authenticating, not just familiarity with a signature or handwriting, and 2. just because a major authenticating company passes or fails to pass certification, doesn't mean they're right. My advice is to buy from a reputable autograph dealer who stands by the authenticity of what he/she is selling. If there is ever any problem, the dealer will refund your money. If you buy from a dealer who has a third party COA, that dealer must still refund your money if there is a problem with authenticity. Third Party Authenticators do not issue refunds when their opinion proves to be wrong. Hope I've been helpful. --- Herman hdarvick@yahoo.com

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by Herman Darvick

Jim, I listen to the stories but it doesn't carry any weight if I do not think the signature is authentic. If I think it may be real, the story might help. It would tell me where and when it was signed. I don't remember the story behind the book signing - it was 18 1/2 years ago. Here's an interesting experience I had about 6 or 7 years ago. I was working for an auction house as a writer and was given a Marilyn Monroe Productions check signed in New York in February 1954 (I forget the exact date) to catalogue. The signature looked good and it had passed certification that day by one of the major authenticators who was there that day certifying items in the auction. I'm pretty good at remembering dates. I knew that Marilyn Monroe had married Joe DiMaggio in January 1954. It didn't take long for me to discover that on the date of that check, Marilyn Monroe was in Japan on her honeymoon. Well, maybe she signed a bunch of checks before they left for Japan? Impossible, since Marilyn Monroe Productions was formed on January 1, 1955 (some books say December 31, 1954). My guess is that someone got some blank checks from her estate or her lawyer's estate, and forged Monroe's signature. There was even a light "bank" stamping on verso. It no longer mattered that the signature looked good. The date was the forger's downfall. I'm bringing this up for two reasons. 1. A lot of things go into authenticating, not just familiarity with a signature or handwriting, and 2. just because a major authenticating company passes or fails to pass certification, doesn't mean they're right. My advice is to buy from a reputable autograph dealer who stands by the authenticity of what he/she is selling. If there is ever any problem, the dealer will refund your money. If you buy from a dealer who has a third party COA, that dealer must still refund your money if there is a problem with authenticity. Third Party Authenticators do not issue refunds when their opinion proves to be wrong. Hope I've been helpful. --- Herman hdarvick@yahoo.com

Thanks a million for chiming in on the subject Herman. Yes, it was 18 1/2 years ago and I'm sure much has changed as well? I respect any man that stands behind his work and speaks freely about it on an open forum.

What your saying then, is that your opinion hasn't changed on the item in 18 1/2 years and I can appreciate that. This was authenticated before PSA & JSA so my question is this.....Are you still authenticating for either company and if you were, why did they not pass the item or did they come back to you for your opinion? Or, was it just they didn't want to go out on a limb on the item?

It's very refreshing to have you clear up what you remember 18 years ago. Even if it meant you changing your mind, I would have no problem with that either, due to the advancing technologies and information that may have been gathered since then.

IMHO, anyone to spend actual $$$$$money on an item like this in any setting needs his head examined. Thanks again.

[travrosty]

everybody,

well, darvick works for jsa, so go buy it from rick for the 13,000 (he will be glad just to get his money back), and then send it to JSA for the cert as I am sure that Mr. Darvick's boss Mr. Spence will see it his way, then you have a very expensive autograph for only 13,000 dollars.

I love it how he says he quit psa due to the amount of mistakes they were making and then he joins who....jsa?

talk about out of the frying pan and into the fire. Reznikoff and Eaton work for both, wonder how that works? Can I work for pepsi and coke as a consultant at the same time?

[alexautographs]

Herman, much as you know I love and respect your talents, and regardless of whether the Jackson is "right" or "wrong", Travis is in a way correct. If we're going to have an impartial discussion, all the connections between owners, authenticators, employers, employees, consignors, and auctioneers should be known.

And I'll be the first to say I wouldn't know Joe Jackson from Joe Blow.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by travrosty

everybody,

well, darvick works for jsa, so go buy it from rick for the 13,000 (he will be glad just to get his money back), and then send it to JSA for the cert as I am sure that Mr. Darvick's boss Mr. Spence will see it his way, then you have a very expensive autograph for only 13,000 dollars.

I love it how he says he quit psa due to the amount of mistakes they were making and then he joins who....jsa?

talk about out of the frying pan and into the fire. Reznikoff and Eaton work for both, wonder how that works? Can I work for pepsi and coke as a consultant at the same time?

great scenario Travis, in a sickening kind of way

As far as the Coke & Pepsi analogy, consider this....
I am a consultant for 4 of the largest "personal care" manufacturers in the city. 3 of the 4 actually share property lines. they hate each other, fight over clients, fight over space, basically, fight over everything. I manage to keep them separate and do the best I can for each individual client. It helps keep their prices low, and enables me to service the crap out of them. That's why they turn to me as their expert, I think? It just occurred to me that I'm an "expert" at something

As far as PSA & JSA..... I really don't want my Company to have any other similarities.

[travrosty]

Herman has access to the Reznikoff amazing techni-color dreamcoat machine otherwise known as a spectral comparator, maybe when Reznikoff is not busy running the Harry Truman ball through it, they could give this Joe Jackson signature a whirl.

I always imagine what someone who double dips with these companies would say if a friend asked them which company they should use. if i were psa, I would be mad if they suggested jsa to them, and vice versa.

Maybe that's why psa and jsa agree so much, if a george washington autograph is submitted to psa and gets reznikoff approved, then sending it to jsa for a second, independent opinion isn't going to do any good if the guy is reznikoff again.

And I don't understand how anyone who owns or works in a prominent position in an auction house like Eaton at RR or Gutierrez at Heritage should be able to be on an authentication team. It's like 2 wolves and a sheep voting to see what they should have for dinner!

[brooklynbaseball]

Small wonder why many of those "called out" on this board choose not to come on here to answer any allegations. Mr Darvick comes here, explains his position, and is set upon immediately. A subject was brought up, he answered it, if you have another question for him, ask it. Who he works for has nothing to do with it.

[Herman Darvick]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

Thanks a million for chiming in on the subject Herman. Yes, it was 18 1/2 years ago and I'm sure much has changed as well? I respect any man that stands behind his work and speaks freely about it on an open forum.

What your saying then, is that your opinion hasn't changed on the item in 18 1/2 years and I can appreciate that. This was authenticated before PSA & JSA so my question is this.....Are you still authenticating for either company and if you were, why did they not pass the item or did they come back to you for your opinion? Or, was it just they didn't want to go out on a limb on the item?

It's very refreshing to have you clear up what you remember 18 years ago. Even if it meant you changing your mind, I would have no problem with that either, due to the advancing technologies and information that may have been gathered since then.

IMHO, anyone to spend actual $$$$$money on an item like this in any setting needs his head examined. Thanks again.

I voluntarily authenticate for JSA. I hadn't seen the signed book, or a copy of the Joe Jackson signature in it, since 1994. I see no reason for me to change my mind. With the existence of the Foster + Freeman Video Spectral Comparator, I probably would want to examine the signature to possibly learn if it was signed between the book's publishing in 1947 and Joe Jackson's death in 1951, and not after I sold the first authentic Joe Jackson signature at auction in 1990 for $23,100.

[mschwade]

Originally Posted by Herman Darvick

I voluntarily authenticate for JSA. I hadn't seen the signed book, or a copy of the Joe Jackson signature in it, since 1994. I see no reason for me to change my mind. With the existence of the Foster + Freeman Video Spectral Comparator, I probably would want to examine the signature to possibly learn if it was signed between the book's publishing in 1947 and Joe Jackson's death in 1951, and not after I sold the first authentic Joe Jackson signature at auction in 1990 for $23,100.

Just curious, where did the first authentic Joe Jackson come from and any details about the signature? Was it a check, a document, a baseball? What steps were made to prove its authenticity? Thanks!

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by mschwade

Just curious, where did the first authentic Joe Jackson come from and any details about the signature? Was it a check, a document, a baseball? What steps were made to prove its authenticity? Thanks!

Matt,
Somewhere in this thread it was mentioned that the first Jackson sig was a cut from a legal document...and there's the rub. Putting all these comments together, and what we know about Jackson, you have the following:

1. He could sign his name, but barely and it was very labored.
2. He wasn't one to sign his name in front of anyone (probably because he was embarrassed by how long it took him.
3. If he didn't sign in front of someone, and took an item home to sign it...and Katie signed all of his autograph requests, why the heck wouldn't she sign that.
4. Every other legitimate Jackson sig has been from a legal type of document.
5. With his, or any other signer that has a slow/labored signature (and where a letter or two may be erased and re-written from time to time), how the heck would you be able to honestly give an opinion that it was legit.

If some fool wants to spend 13k on an item that "might" be legit even though there's no logical reason why it should be, well, that's their business.
Sure, you look at the autograph and judge it on it's merits, it's just that you can't do that we something like this.

[Bocabirdman]

Originally Posted by mr2686

Matt,
Somewhere in this thread it was mentioned that the first Jackson sig was a cut from a legal document...and there's the rub. Putting all these comments together, and what we know about Jackson, you have the following:

1. He could sign his name, but barely and it was very labored.
2. He wasn't one to sign his name in front of anyone (probably because he was embarrassed by how long it took him.
3. If he didn't sign in front of someone, and took an item home to sign it...and Katie signed all of his autograph requests, why the heck wouldn't she sign that.
4. Every other legitimate Jackson sig has been from a legal type of document.
5. With his, or any other signer that has a slow/labored signature (and where a letter or two may be erased and re-written from time to time), how the heck would you be able to honestly give an opinion that it was legit.

If some fool wants to spend 13k on an item that "might" be legit even though there's no logical reason why it should be, well, that's their business.
Sure, you look at the autograph and judge it on it's merits, it's just that you can't do that we something like this.

All five of your points resonate with me. My grandfather was unable to read or write. He was taught to sign his signature by my grandmother. For the remaining 70 years of his life he had my grandmother, then my mother and finally me to do the day-to-day check signing etc. He only signed his name when he was required to for a mortgage, or selling the home or a couple installment loans. I would not be exagerating to say that it was years, sometimes decades in between signatures. His embarrassment was evident as he would struggle to make eleven letters. Each letter was an adventure. Erasures were the norm. I can still see him struggling to write his name, his tongue poking out of one side and then the other of his mouth. He often would stop in the middle of signing, to relax his hand. Each signature was a different train wreck and there certainly was no practicing in between. I can fully understand why Shoeless Joe's labored signature varied greatly over his lifetime. Authenticating it without documentation must be a real crap shoot...

[travrosty]

[QUOTE=Herman Darvick;1033963]I voluntarily authenticate for JSA.



that's the dumbest thing i have ever heard.


who FORCIBLY authenticates for jsa? do they have people chained to their desks over there?

[alexautographs]

[QUOTE=travrosty;1033973]

Originally Posted by Herman Darvick

I voluntarily authenticate for JSA.



that's the dumbest thing i have ever heard.


who FORCIBLY authenticates for jsa? do they have people chained to their desks over there?

Travis - Not speaking for my respected colleague, but I believe he meant to say that he is not paid to authenticate for them.

[travrosty]

[QUOTE=Herman Darvick;1033963]I voluntarily authenticate for JSA.



that's the dumbest thing i have ever heard.


who FORCIBLY authenticates for jsa? do they have people chained to their desks over there?

[alexautographs]

Originally Posted by Herman Darvick

With the existence of the Foster + Freeman Video Spectral Comparator, I probably would want to examine the signature to possibly learn if it was signed between the book's publishing in 1947 and Joe Jackson's death in 1951, and not after I sold the first authentic Joe Jackson signature at auction in 1990 for $23,100.

I'm not quite sure that that machine can tell you the AGE of writing sample, as it uses different sources of light for its analyses. I believe it can tell you differences in ink colors, erasures, overwriting, etc., but nothing about age.

I believe that one would have to take a minute sample of the ink, or use the latest advances in mass spectrometry (non-destructive) in order to determine the actual age of the ink (comparing it to known manufacturer's samples). This was done with a Clyde Barrow letter we once handled to determine that the graphite was not of the period: an analysis using a light source of any kind would have been useless. Of course, the cost of such apparatus is far beyond the reach of any autograph dealer or authenticator.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Herman, Thanks for responding. It is a rare opportunity for insight into an authentication.

I think we all agree, that on any purchase of such magnitude greater diligence is required. Rick, should have at least called you, googled you, (asked a guy on the street, for god's sake) rather than just saying "I never heard of this guy."

I have a question for you on your authentication of this item. how much did the story of who, why, and how this was signed weigh on your decision? I ask this in reference to the erasure, and as importantly, the Shoeless inscription.

Under what circumstances do you feel someone would feel the need to clarify a plainly obvious signature, especially on a book referencing that individual? As far as the erasure, are there other examples of such behavior? This would have had to have been witnessed, noted, and related to someone in order for it to be considered with great weight, would it not? From whom did you receive these bits of info?

I ask these as common sense (to me) issues that I would have asked the authenticator if I were in the position to purchase such a rare artifact.

Jim Marinari

PS. The intelligence or lack therof of forgers can be easily debated in another thread. I have seen a Gehrig signed in sharpie.

I'm not sure Herman will clarify his answer to these questions, although I would be really interested in the answers. "I don't remember the story behind the book signing - it was 18 1/2 years ago." This would hold more weight with me if not for his definitive answers in his original post. It appears that he remembers the details quite clearly. His defense of his original OK seems to hinge on extraneous information from SOMEONE. If that someone was a party to the signing, it would be some nice corroboration to his finding. IF that is the case, why the generic LOA? Wouldn't it be prudent to note any provenance rather than "It looks good to me"?

On the face of it, it appears that 'legend' turned into 'fact'. None of this has any direct correlation to authenticity of the signature or not. However, the quick certainty with which several of these questions were answered (without attribution) makes me nervous.

[alexautographs]

At the risk of sounding wishy-washy, Mr. Deertick (a favorite of ours in CT!), but...an autograph has to stand on its own two legs regardless of the story that surrounds its past. I remember Charles Hamilton relating how he would get autographs "all gussied up" in fancy frames with tons of letters of provenance from Haile Selassie to General Lee, but the signature was a pig nonetheless.

When I get a piece to sell, I ignore all the provenance, framing, previous sales records and ESPECIALLY previous COA's and concentrate on the autograph itself. I'm guaranteeing the autograph alone - not all the (potentially) worthless window dressing that comes with it.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by alexautographs

At the risk of sounding wishy-washy, Mr. Deertick (a favorite of ours in CT!), but...an autograph has to stand on its own two legs regardless of the story that surrounds its past. I remember Charles Hamilton relating how he would get autographs "all gussied up" in fancy frames with tons of letters of provenance from Haile Selassie to General Lee, but the signature was a pig nonetheless.

When I get a piece to sell, I ignore all the provenance, framing, previous sales records and ESPECIALLY previous COA's and concentrate on the autograph itself. I'm guaranteeing the autograph alone - not all the (potentially) worthless window dressing that comes with it.

I agree! All the extras should support the conclusion, not prove it. But ignoring info (such as signed while on a deathbed) is ignoring info for you to make your decision an informed one, no?

[travrosty]

.....

[travrosty]

provenance only helps a fake autograph make it to being "real". everybody has a story and provenance stories are faked all the time.

people can look these authenticators right in the eye and lie like a rug.

that's why these bags of hair people sell with interesting and rock solid "provenance" turn out to not be a DNA match. it's all phony.

provenance is only needed to bump a fake autograph into the "real" category, if it is really real, you don't need a provenance story. it's nice but can't be relied on because people...

A. Lie
B. remember things incorrectly, especially if it happened a long time ago.
C. unknowingly lie / are duped by someone else.

[alexautographs]

Originally Posted by Deertick

I agree! All the extras should support the conclusion, not prove it. But ignoring info (such as signed while on a deathbed) is ignoring info for you to make your decision an informed one, no?

Clarification of my earlier: Essentially, the supporting material has to be pretty much ironclad for it to carry any weight in an authentication of the writing itself. For someone to say: "My grandmother said she saw Jesus sign it" doesn't merit any consideration.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by alexautographs

Clarification of my earlier: Essentially, the supporting material has to be pretty much ironclad for it to carry any weight in an authentication of the writing itself. For someone to say: "My grandmother said she saw Jesus sign it" doesn't merit any consideration.

Yeah, that would be kind of crazy.

But for a 'signer' like Joe Jackson (or Jesus), provenance becomes even more important than for a guy who knew how to write...in English. If someone who was trusted and not in dire financial straits said: "My grandmother remembers my grandfather getting Joe Jackson to sign the book, and it was his most treasured possession, and it's been a part of our family for 70 years" might carry some weight.

[alexautographs]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Yeah, that would be kind of crazy.

But for a 'signer' like Joe Jackson (or Jesus), provenance becomes even more important than for a guy who knew how to write...in English. If someone who was trusted and not in dire financial straits said: "My grandmother remembers my grandfather getting Joe Jackson to sign the book, and it was his most treasured possession, and it's been a part of our family for 70 years" might carry some weight.

Sure - but but the general public buying the piece has to be convinced that the consignor or seller is "trusted", and someone just saying so simply doesn't cut it in today's world, I'm sorry to say.

[Exhibitman]

Not really, Scott. We lawyer types call that "chain hearsay" and it has no value in court because it is not eyewitness evidence of anything.