Rare Shoeless Joe Jackson autograph

[drcy]

I have no insight on the signatures, but I'd want to see the photos in person before I said they were from 1911.

[r2678]

Just an aside... A few years ago SABR published a book on Addie Joss who died in April, 1911. Perhaps a review of that book will reveal something of Cleveland's spring training schedule for that year.

[jad22]

Does this:

http://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/19...a/7130-80052.s

Seem consistent with this:

http://legendaryauctions.com/Napoleo...LOT169557.aspx

[packs]

An observation on that Lajoie photo. Both the "i" in Lajoie and "i" in Alexandria have offset dots. Both of the "i"s are dotted over the following letter.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by jad22

Does this:

http://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/19...a/7130-80052.s

Seem consistent with this:

http://legendaryauctions.com/Napoleo...LOT169557.aspx

The stops and starts in the last name absolutely do. The very unique letter N is very close as well.

Tom C

[packs]

I was wrong about the item description. The description on the Lajoie photo does not say that the inscription was written by the photographer. It seems to suggest that Lajoie is credited with the inscription.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

The stops and starts in the last name absolutely do. The very unique letter N is very close as well.

Tom C

Agreed, that's actually the best Lajoie exemplar I've seen for matching up with the Frank Smith example.

Tom - have you found any Matty exemplars that compare favorably?

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Agreed, that's actually the best Lajoie exemplar I've seen for matching up with the Frank Smith example.

Tom - have you found any Matty exemplars that compare favorably?

None as of yet. Not really interested in these as a whole so I haven't done much investigating. Just kind of picked the low hanging fruit that was posted by jad22 and gave my opinion on it. I was interested a while back in figuring out when the Giants photos had been signed and used a player database to see when those particular players were with the team at the same time. Turned out to be September through the end of the year 1911.

Tom C

[Runscott]

Marquard is dated October 1, so you were spot-on on the dating.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Agreed, that's actually the best Lajoie exemplar I've seen for matching up with the Frank Smith example.

Tom - have you found any Matty exemplars that compare favorably?

are matty autographs that rare?

[Runscott]

Pete, I'm not sure. Matty autographs cost so much that I'm not even remotely in the market for one, so I only follow them casually.

There are loads of good Mathewson exemplars to choose from, and given that we've discussed Jackson and Lajoie, Matty seemed like the next logical one to look at. I doubt all of them are bad - the commons and non-stars are likely all authentic. If the Jackson wasn't in the lot, and the Matty looked better, I probably wouldn't question any of them. But the former is, and the latter doesn't.

[shelly]

Yes they are.
Now after all the back and forth who can say that they would buy that collection. Given everything that you now know.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drcy

I have no insight on the signatures, but I'd want to see the photos in person before I said they were from 1911.

David, I would too. But all of us can't individually handle the prints, and PSA/DNA already approved them. I assume that would be Henry Yee or someone very closely associated with him. I'm good with their opinion.

The signatures, not so much.

[prewarsports]

Just as a side note that I viewed this album in person at the National Convention last year at the Heritage booth. I was skeptical of the autographs but the photographs themselves to appear to be original to the time period, but in pristine condition. They are silver gelatin prints and from what I could tell from a cursory examination, they do appear to be original to the purported date of 1911.

Rhys

[mschwade]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Just as a side note that I viewed this album in person at the National Convention last year at the Heritage booth. I was skeptical of the autographs but the photographs themselves to appear to be original to the time period, but in pristine condition. They are silver gelatin prints and from what I could tell from a cursory examination, they do appear to be original to the purported date of 1911.

Rhys

Here's a few facts that can be confirmed...

Spring Training site for the Cleveland Naps (now Indians) from 1910-1911 was in Alexandria, Louisiana.
SOURCE: http://www.clevelandareahistory.com/...-training.html

Shoeless Joe Jackson played on the Cleveland Naps from 1910-1915.
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoeless_Joe_Jackson

"F. W. Smith, of Cleveland, for 21 years staff photographer for the "Plain Dealer" and "Leader," announces that he has left newspaper work to devote his entire time to home portrait, commercial and speed photography. Good luck to you, friend Smith!"

SOURCE: (Abel's Photographic Weekly, July 1, 1922) https://books.google.com/books?id=NI...Dealer&f=false

Frank W. Smith obviously lived in Cleveland so that would explain the reason they were in Northeast Ohio.

Here's the part I get lost on... The description of the Christy Mathewson photo says, "Mathewson following through on a warm-up toss before a slowly filling grandstand at Chicago's West Side Grounds".

Why would Frank Smith, the Plain Dealer photographer be in Chicago shooting a Giants-Cubs game? Would he pick up a photo from another photographer to get signed? I doubt that. Any thoughts or theories?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by mschwade

Here's the part I get lost on... The description of the Christy Mathewson photo says, "Mathewson following through on a warm-up toss before a slowly filling grandstand at Chicago's West Side Grounds".

Why would Frank Smith, the Plain Dealer photographer be in Chicago shooting a Giants-Cubs game? Would he pick up a photo from another photographer to get signed? I doubt that. Any thoughts or theories?

Tom said the Giants photos were taken in September (would have to be Sept 27-Oct 1, Matty threw Sept 28), so late in the season when the NL outcome was soon approaching. The Giants won the NL pennant that year, with the Cubs finishing second, so one of these two teams was likely to win the pennant. It wouldn't be unusual for the newspaper to send their sports photographer to Chicago to cover a series between the two - 4 games, especially given that Cleveland was in Philadelphia during that period and got back home on October 2 to play Detroit.

[mschwade]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Tom said the Giants photos were taken in September (would have to be Sept 27-Oct 1, Matty threw Sept 28), so late in the season when the NL outcome was soon approaching. The Giants won the NL pennant that year, with the Cubs finishing second, so one of these two teams was likely to win the pennant. It wouldn't be unusual for the newspaper to send their sports photographer to Chicago to cover a series between the two - 4 games, especially given that Cleveland was in Philadelphia during that period and got back home on October 2 to play Detroit.

Thanks Scott.

[Runscott]

My pleasure, Matt - I love digging around MLB REF. I was hoping to find that Cleveland was in Chicago at the same time as the Giants, but that would have been too easy.

Prior to finding out that PSA/DNA had checked out the physical prints, I was very skeptical about this - those wide white borders and the minty appearance didn't look right. But given PSA gave their approval, if HA had not included Jackson, Lajoie and Matty, I would have had no problem believing everything was authentic, or at least would have looked more closely at McGraw, Marquard and a few others (which I have not). The Jackson was just too much, and Matty doesn't match anything any of us have seen (I don't think) - the only thing it has going for it is the inscription, which matches up fairly well with an exemplar on PSA's site.

But you have to remember - the major AH's aren't trying to sell to us. For us, the pieces will sell themselves. They are going after the collectors who don't pay attention to this forum.

Sleep well knowing that if something is bad, none of your internet friends will get burned.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Just as a side note that I viewed this album in person at the National Convention last year at the Heritage booth. I was skeptical of the autographs but the photographs themselves to appear to be original to the time period, but in pristine condition. They are silver gelatin prints and from what I could tell from a cursory examination, they do appear to be original to the purported date of 1911.

Rhys

Rhys, doesn't the sizes and big white borders seem unusual for the 1911 time period?

I can't speak on the autographs, but based on what I see on the Heritage site, and the sizes that all seem to be either standard studio 8x10 or 5x8 + the big white borders, they seem to fit into the early 1920's time period or so.

Doesn't mean he didn't take these pictures in 1911 and then have them developed at a later date, and then maybe track these guys down one by one..........though that then negates the Mathewson.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Doesn't mean he didn't take these pictures in 1911 and then have them developed at a later date, and then maybe track these guys down one by one..........though that then negates the Mathewson.

Or, explains why the Matty may not be good, when many of the commons appear to be.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Or, explains why the Matty may not be good, when many of the commons appear to be.

"If the commons are good, the expensive ones must be good as well."

This is a thought that forgers have been relying on for years.

[packs]

Ordinarily I'd agree but in this case all of the photos are said to come from the same source.