James J. Jeffries & Jack Dempsey Autos - Are These Real?

[CarltonHendricks]

36" x 22"

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=156144
I posted this last Sunday, same day I got it, on the Sept P/U's thread on the memorabilia side, see link above. I'm not getting a lot of definitive feedback over there so hopefully someone here can tell me if these two sigs of James J. Jeffries and Jack Dempsey are ligit

Initially I bought the piece because I liked the photo. The following day I got it I examined it closer with a magnifying glass and spotted the sigs...

[Exhibitman]

Here are two good ones:





The Jeffries signature looks bad to me for a number of reasons. First, it is faded but the supposedly contemporaneous inscription above and below it is not--you'd think the same ink exposed to the same conditions for 100+years would result in the same aging--and the date is partially written over the name [look at the J in July]. Looks to me like it was filled in later to make it appear that Jeffries had signed and inscribed it. Second, I don't buy the inscription date for Jeffries. The photo itself was taken July 4, 1910 and made into postcards, and this was supposed to have been signed three weeks later? Third, there is the image quality. The Dana photos from the era that I have seen are of much higher image quality, like this one:



Finally, it appears [you could tell better] that the other notations on the photo identifying various people match the purported signature. Seems more likely to me that it was made years later as a bar decoration and hand-annotated by someone to try and make it look like Jeffries had signed it.

And how does Dempsey come to sign it in 1931 in a bar in Alameda? Dempsey was active as a referee in 1931 so there is some record of his travels. The closest he got to Alameda for refereeing was Sacramento, which is several hours away in the pre-freeway days. And the signature is really messy for Dempsey--I've not seen a sloppy one like that, especially the first name.

[Duluth Eskimo]

I like the Dempsey, but think the Jeffries needs to be evaluated more. I don't necessarily dislike it though. Just my opinion

[JimStinson]

The signatures are a mute point , As the photo itself which appears to be an original "Dana" would have far more value than the Autographs. If they are real or not and in my opinion they are not. The "fight" on the other hand was arguably "The Fight of the Century" And an original photo from the "set" that was taken throughout the bout is a nice find.

The Jeffries matches nether his signature or writing style.
In addition the signature of Jack Dempsey on the photo would have no more relevance to the event than if Mae West had signed it. Have attached a couple Dempsey Vintage sigs to go with the one someone posted above that was signed later in life and one common thread to make note of is that the "end" portion of Dempsey on the "Dana" photo is clearly formed , look at the "sey". , On almost all of the Dempsey signatures I have ever seen he does not include a pronounced "s" , siging his last name to look more like "DEMPEY" than "DEMPSEY".

[packs]

Is the photo original? It looks a little washed out but it's also 100 years old.

[JimStinson]

What is cool about the photo is check out Jack Johnson's left hand. He has ABSOLUTELY NO RESPECT FOR JEFFRIES , Johnson's left hand is so low its almost touching his knee at the EXACT same time Jeffries is LOADING UP a right hook....

[toybulldog]

Feel confident that the Jeffries and Dempsey are not good. I have about 60 Jeffries examples stored and he did not sign "James J. Jeffries" in any of them, always "Jas J Jeffries". Also noticed he rarely dated his signature which made it harder to pluck out some early ones. Attached a few here, one is dated 1909 but is a smaller file:



Also a few Dempseys dated 1931:


Best,
Mark O.

[JimStinson]

Another Vintage Dempsey (with the S) and another Jeffries

[Exhibitman]

Agreed, Jim, as far as the photo's value goes--if it is an original Dana photo it is quite valuable. The Jeffries I showed above is only about 10.5 x 13 but I'd not dream of selling it for less than several hundred dollars, so a Dana original in the massive size of this one should go into four figures. Though if the Jeffries sig was real, it would enhance it for a Jeffries collector like me. Carlton, I'd love to see some better photos of it out of the frame and hear the results of any research you do on it. Regardless of the sigs it is a hell of a pick if it is a Dana original.

Jim, Johnson's stance reminds me of Sergio Martinez and Roy Jones Jr. Or should I say the other way around? Whoever said the modern guys invented that style!

[JimStinson]

I'm guessing its original because of the frame, that frame must be 100 years old. The photo is probably bleached out from hanging on a wall. Sometimes those old framed items have neat surprises behind them when removed from the frame !

[Exhibitman]

Like a first printing of the declaration of independence perhaps?

Declaration of Independence Found in a $4 Picture Frame
By RITA REIF
Published: April 03, 1991

Sign In to E-Mail
Print

A collector who spent $4 at a Pennsylvania flea market two years ago for a dismal painting because he liked the frame now finds himself the possessor of a first printing of the Declaration of Independence. It is expected to bring $800,000 to $1 million at an auction on June 4.

The discovery was announced yesterday by David N. Redden, head of the book and manuscript department at Sotheby's in Manhattan. Mr. Redden described the document, found behind the painting when the collector took the frame apart, as an "unspeakably fresh copy" of the declaration. "The fact that it has been in the backing of the frame preserved it," he said. Of the 24 copies known to survive, only 3 are in private hands, he added.

Mr. Redden said the unidentified owner bought the painting, "a dismal dark country scene with a signature he could not make out," for its gilded and ornately carved frame. He told Mr. Redden that he discarded the painting, which he disliked. When he realized the frame was crudely made and unsalvageable, he said he got rid of it also.

"But he kept the declaration, which he had found behind the painting," Mr. Redden said. "It was folded up, about the size of a business envelope. He thought it might be an early 19th-century printing and worth keeping as a curiosity."

Recently the owner showed it to a friend "who became quite enthusiastic and urged him to look into it further," said Selby Kiffer, an Americana printing specialist at Sotheby's "At that point he called us."

"The discovery of any first-printing copy of the declaration, even a fragmentary one or a poor copy, would be exciting," Mr. Kiffer said. "But on this one, the condition is beyond reproach. It was folded up when we first saw it -- the way the owner said it was in the painting, less than one-tenth of an inch thick. I had to agree with him it was just as well that he kept it that way.

"There has been absolutely no restoration, no repair. It was unframed and unbacked." Only 7 of the 24 copies are unbacked, he said, which increases their value.

Mr. Kiffer said the declaration was the fourth copy of the first printing to surface in the last 10 years -- three of which were either known copies or had been handed down to heirs of the original 18th-century owners. The record for a declaration sold at auction is $1.6 million, which was realized in January 1990 in a Sotheby's sale of a copy from the estate of H. Bradley Martin, an heir to the Phipps steel fortune.

"The ink was still wet on this copy when it was folded," Mr. Kiffer said. "The very first line -- 'In Congress, July 4, 1776' -- shows up in the bottom margin in reverse, as a faint offsetting or shadow printing, one more proof of the urgency John Dunlap, the printer, and others felt in dispersing this document."