PAWN STARS Shoeless Joe Jackson signed book...

[Ringking]

I just heard about the goof on pawn stars last night. There was a book that a guy had for sale that was signed by Shoeless Joe Jackson. It had a COA from Herman Darvick. Herman is a person that sold something signed by shoeless joe for 23 grand a few years ago. Long story short...the book was a fake and the Pawn Stars are out 13 GRAND on the item.

To make matters worse, they sent the book to PSA/DNA and it came back with a rejection letter saying that the book showed signs of being traced.

How can such a self appointed expert make such a huge mistake??? And he works for PSA??? What about other items with his COA now?

It can be seen here: http://www.history.com/shows/pawn-st...say-it-aint-so


watch the whole thing as this goes on for the whole show.

[MVSNYC]

i saw the show. i was excited at first, because at quick glance i thought it was legit. i was SUPER shocked Rick didn't bring in an expert first, almost seemed staged to create "good" TV, he never screws up that bad, and not having someone look at it first was inexcusable.

[blackbetsy]

The question I have for PSA and their so-called experts is this: Has anyone there given any thought to the fact that the same characteristics that apply to tracing (i.e., pressure points, delays, etc., etc......), pretty much apply to someone such as Joe Jackson who would have been "drawing" his name based on a pattern taught him by his wife. I interviewed Eugene Estes (and that name means little to history, except that he witnessed Joe signing his Will). Mr. Estes told me that Joe struggled to sign his name, that he practiced on the back on an envelope three times before setting pen to paper on the Will. Mr. Estes said Joe stopped several times during the signing, which in my opinion would make it looked "traced". Now, I am not saying PSA got it wrong, but there is enough reasonable doubt in my mind that if I were Rick Harrison, I'd have it forensically tested for period ink and that the ink had been on the page for a period of between 1947 (when the book was published) and December 5, 1951 (The date Joe Jackson ceased to be a living entity). The signature on the book looks different than the one that appears on his will, but the one on his will appears different that the one that appears on his 1941 mortgage note and that one appears different that the one on his 1949 drivers license. In other words.....all his signatures different somewhat, since he was just tracing a pattern taught to him by his wife Katie. I sent Rick Harrison an email and told him as much. But I do agree that the piece appeared to be staged for TV....as Rick has almost always went to one of his "experts" when he was about to lay out that much cash for something.

Mike Nola
Official Historian
The Shoeless Joe Jackson Virtual Hall of Fame Web Site
http://www.blackbetsy.com/
Home of the Joe Jackson model Louisville Slugger baseball bat offer.
The voice said "Build it and they will come".........and they have!!!!!

[MVSNYC]

all good points. i also found it funny when his expert (after he purchased it) said it looks like it was signed "slowly"...NO SH*T! it was (if truly signed by Joe's hand) signed by an illiterate person who can't write, so of course it was executed slowly.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by blackbetsy

The question I have for PSA and their so-called experts is this: Has anyone there given any thought to the fact that the same characteristics that apply to tracing (i.e., pressure points, delays, etc., etc......), pretty much apply to someone such as Joe Jackson who would have been "drawing" his name based on a pattern taught him by his wife. I interviewed Eugene Estes (and that name means little to history, except that he witnessed Joe signing his Will). Mr. Estes told me that Joe struggled to sign his name, that he practiced on the back on an envelope three times before setting pen to paper on the Will. Mr. Estes said Joe stopped several times during the signing, which in my opinion would make it looked "traced". Now, I am not saying PSA got it wrong, but there is enough reasonable doubt in my mind that if I were Rick Harrison, I'd have it forensically tested for period ink and that the ink had been on the page for a period of between 1947 (when the book was published) and December 5, 1951 (The date Joe Jackson ceased to be a living entity). The signature on the book looks different than the one that appears on his will, but the one on his will appears different that the one that appears on his 1941 mortgage note and that one appears different that the one on his 1949 drivers license. In other words.....all his signatures different somewhat, since he was just tracing a pattern taught to him by his wife Katie. I sent Rick Harrison an email and told him as much. But I do agree that the piece appeared to be staged for TV....as Rick has almost always went to one of his "experts" when he was about to lay out that much cash for something.

Mike Nola
Official Historian
The Shoeless Joe Jackson Virtual Hall of Fame Web Site
http://www.blackbetsy.com/
Home of the Joe Jackson model Louisville Slugger baseball bat offer.
The voice said "Build it and they will come".........and they have!!!!!

In that scenario, why would the 'e' in Joe have been erased and redrawn? Why would it be smooth flowing, relative to known sigs? Why would he sign a BOOK (that was already signed by his wife on his behalf), when he was so apprehensive to sign his MORTGAGE and WILL?

[murphusa]

I find it hard to believe that most of you don't know that American Pickers, Pawn Stars, Storage Units show and the such are staged. If they didn't f up once in a while you might belive they aren't true.

A friend in central PA who was on Pickers a year or so ago, said they spent 3 days getting things right at his house just to buy one gun

[Rob D.]

Excellent point, Jim.

Discussing why certain things do or don't happen on Pawn Stars is like debating why Norm always sat at the end of the bar on Cheers or why Richie couldn't get a date for the prom on Happy Days.

Why? Because that's the way the scripts are written.

[oriolesbb6]

Agreed-remeber it's TV. My brother in law occasionally films reality shows for his co. based out of Philly. The producers search the area for the right locale and then truck the items in for staging(Pickers, Storage Wars, etc.)....

[cobblove]

so the guy had it authenticated 18 years ago and didnt do reasearch on the value until now? Not sure about this whole story on the seller.

[thebigtrain]

Discussing why certain things do or don't happen on Pawn Stars is like debating why Norm always sat at the end of the bar on Cheers or why Richie couldn't get a date for the prom on Happy Days.

Why? Because that's the way the scripts are written.

Cheers was the first smoke-free bar, 20 years before it became the law. What a joke.


Also why was a grown man like Fonz always hanging out in the men's room with teenage schoolboys? If that was today there'd be rumours galore about what was going on in there, and probably a sting operation.

[yanks12025]

The american pickers were just in my town last week.

[blackbetsy]

Did I miss something here. Has there been talk of the "E" in Joe being erased and re-drawn? If so, I apologize I missed that. I sure didn't see it in the images sent to me of the book, does not appear to have been erased or anything of that nature. Again, I'm not saying it's a legitimate Joe Jackson signature (one actually signed by him), what I am saying is that the autograph is close enough to Joe's signature late in his life that I would at least have it forensically tested if I owned the book. No disrespect, but Rick's so called "book expert" used a signed baseball as her bell weather of all things Joe Jackson signed. If anyone here has tried to sign a baseball, it's a difficult proposition at best, let alone for someone who can't read or write. Sure it was shakey compared to the one of the book....two things in play here, one, Joe signed the ball early in his life and on a round surface to boot, two the book was signed on a flat surface, later in life after Jackson would have had more practice signing things. The ball was most likely signed in the presence of other players and Joe would have rushed that. The book on the other hand was probably signed at home with Katie's help. From the dozen or so folks that I have had conversations with over the years about asking Joe for an autograph, he always told them to leave the item with him (saying he was too busy to sign at the moment) and to come back tomorrow and pick the item up. Most of these things (mostly balls) where autographed at home by Katie that night and Joe took them back to the liquor store the next day for the person to pick up. The book being a flat item and depending on who it was for, Joe may have signed the item himself if it was for a close friend or as a favor to a friend...who knows....I'm making up scenarios here, but you get my drift, there is enough reasonable doubt in my mind and from what I am seeing in the images I have been sent....that if I owned the book.....I'd be forensically testing it to rule out that part of it. For me, this book is just another mystery about Joe Jackson that we will probably never know the truth about. But it's fun trying to figure it out.

Mike
Official Historian
The Shoeless Joe Jackson Virtual Hall of Fame Web Site
http://www.blackbetsy.com/
Home of the Joe Jackson model Louisville Slugger baseball bat offer.
The voice said "Build it and they will come".........and they have!!!!!

[ibuysportsephemera]

Originally Posted by blackbetsy

Did I miss something here. Has there been talk of the "E" in Joe being erased and re-drawn? If so, I apologize I missed that. I sure didn't see it in the images sent to me of the book, does not appear to have been erased or anything of that nature. Again, I'm not saying it's a legitimate Joe Jackson signature (one actually signed by him), what I am saying is that the autograph is close enough to Joe's signature late in his life that I would at least have it forensically tested if I owned the book. No disrespect, but Rick's so called "book expert" used a signed baseball as her bell weather of all things Joe Jackson signed. If anyone here has tried to sign a baseball, it's a difficult proposition at best, let alone for someone who can't read or write. Sure it was shakey compared to the one of the book....two things in play here, one, Joe signed the ball early in his life and on a round surface to boot, two the book was signed on a flat surface, later in life after Jackson would have had more practice signing things. The ball was most likely signed in the presence of other players and Joe would have rushed that. The book on the other hand was probably signed at home with Katie's help. From the dozen or so folks that I have had conversations with over the years about asking Joe for an autograph, he always told them to leave the item with him (saying he was too busy to sign at the moment) and to come back tomorrow and pick the item up. Most of these things (mostly balls) where autographed at home by Katie that night and Joe took them back to the liquor store the next day for the person to pick up. The book being a flat item and depending on who it was for, Joe may have signed the item himself if it was for a close friend or as a favor to a friend...who knows....I'm making up scenarios here, but you get my drift, there is enough reasonable doubt in my mind and from what I am seeing in the images I have been sent....that if I owned the book.....I'd be forensically testing it to rule out that part of it. For me, this book is just another mystery about Joe Jackson that we will probably never know the truth about. But it's fun trying to figure it out.

Mike
Official Historian
The Shoeless Joe Jackson Virtual Hall of Fame Web Site
http://www.blackbetsy.com/
Home of the Joe Jackson model Louisville Slugger baseball bat offer.
The voice said "Build it and they will come".........and they have!!!!!

Even if you got it tested forensically, my understanding is that the forgers used period ink on higher end items. So the ink would match up...correct?

Jeff

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by blackbetsy

Did I miss something here. Has there been talk of the "E" in Joe being erased and re-drawn? If so, I apologize I missed that.
Mike
Official Historian
The Shoeless Joe Jackson Virtual Hall of Fame Web Site
http://www.blackbetsy.com/
Home of the Joe Jackson model Louisville Slugger baseball bat offer.
The voice said "Build it and they will come".........and they have!!!!!

It came up when they were reading the letter from PSA/DNA on the episode.

[Herman Darvick]

Originally Posted by blackbetsy

Did I miss something here. Has there been talk of the "E" in Joe being erased and re-drawn? If so, I apologize I missed that. I sure didn't see it in the images sent to me of the book, does not appear to have been erased or anything of that nature. Again, I'm not saying it's a legitimate Joe Jackson signature (one actually signed by him), what I am saying is that the autograph is close enough to Joe's signature late in his life that I would at least have it forensically tested if I owned the book. No disrespect, but Rick's so called "book expert" used a signed baseball as her bell weather of all things Joe Jackson signed. If anyone here has tried to sign a baseball, it's a difficult proposition at best, let alone for someone who can't read or write. Sure it was shakey compared to the one of the book....two things in play here, one, Joe signed the ball early in his life and on a round surface to boot, two the book was signed on a flat surface, later in life after Jackson would have had more practice signing things. The ball was most likely signed in the presence of other players and Joe would have rushed that. The book on the other hand was probably signed at home with Katie's help. From the dozen or so folks that I have had conversations with over the years about asking Joe for an autograph, he always told them to leave the item with him (saying he was too busy to sign at the moment) and to come back tomorrow and pick the item up. Most of these things (mostly balls) where autographed at home by Katie that night and Joe took them back to the liquor store the next day for the person to pick up. The book being a flat item and depending on who it was for, Joe may have signed the item himself if it was for a close friend or as a favor to a friend...who knows....I'm making up scenarios here, but you get my drift, there is enough reasonable doubt in my mind and from what I am seeing in the images I have been sent....that if I owned the book.....I'd be forensically testing it to rule out that part of it. For me, this book is just another mystery about Joe Jackson that we will probably never know the truth about. But it's fun trying to figure it out.

Mike
Official Historian
The Shoeless Joe Jackson Virtual Hall of Fame Web Site
http://www.blackbetsy.com/
Home of the Joe Jackson model Louisville Slugger baseball bat offer.
The voice said "Build it and they will come".........and they have!!!!!

Mike, I assumed the "e" was erased and gone over because that's what PSA/DNA said. I do not remember any erasures when I authenticated the signature 18 1/2 years ago, but it was 18 1/2 years ago. In any event, I agree with you wholeheartedly that it should be brought to an autograph expert, especially one who has access to a Video Spectral Comparator used by handwriting experts to determine authenticity. --- Herman hdarvick@yahoo.com

[Herman Darvick]

Originally Posted by Deertick

In that scenario, why would the 'e' in Joe have been erased and redrawn? Why would it be smooth flowing, relative to known sigs? Why would he sign a BOOK (that was already signed by his wife on his behalf), when he was so apprehensive to sign his MORTGAGE and WILL?

The book was not signed by his wife. The collector wrote "Shoeless Joe Jackson" to identify who signed it. When she signed her husband's autograph, she would sign "Joe Jackson," never adding "Shoeless." Besides, it is just not her handwriting. Jackson wanted his autograph to look good. That's why he practiced before he signed his will. He evidently screwed up on the "e" so he erased it and rewrote it. Do you really think a forger would be so dumb that he would erase a letter and rewrite it? hdarvick@yahoo.com

[Herman Darvick]

Originally Posted by Deertick

In that scenario, why would the 'e' in Joe have been erased and redrawn? Why would it be smooth flowing, relative to known sigs? Why would he sign a BOOK (that was already signed by his wife on his behalf), when he was so apprehensive to sign his MORTGAGE and WILL?

That's not Jackson's wife signing his name. That's the collector writing the name of the person who signed the page because, while "Joe" is legible, "Jackson" is sloppy.

[mybestbretts]

Very well written Blackbetsy

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by Ringking

I just heard about the goof on pawn stars last night. There was a book that a guy had for sale that was signed by Shoeless Joe Jackson. It had a COA from Herman Darvick. Herman is a person that sold something signed by shoeless joe for 23 grand a few years ago. Long story short...the book was a fake and the Pawn Stars are out 13 GRAND on the item.

To make matters worse, they sent the book to PSA/DNA and it came back with a rejection letter saying that the book showed signs of being traced.

How can such a self appointed expert make such a huge mistake??? And he works for PSA??? What about other items with his COA now?

It can be seen here: http://www.history.com/shows/pawn-st...say-it-aint-so


watch the whole thing as this goes on for the whole show.

It looks like the LOA was dated in 1994. I think Herman Munster should comment about it or make a retraction that he made a mistake in 1994...or???

[sycks22]

It's all for show, no way he really bought it before getting it checked out. He's not wanting to blow $13k. Chumly might though.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Ringking

I just heard about the goof on pawn stars last night. There was a book that a guy had for sale that was signed by Shoeless Joe Jackson. It had a COA from Herman Darvick. Herman is a person that sold something signed by shoeless joe for 23 grand a few years ago. Long story short...the book was a fake and the Pawn Stars are out 13 GRAND on the item.

To make matters worse, they sent the book to PSA/DNA and it came back with a rejection letter saying that the book showed signs of being traced.

How can such a self appointed expert make such a huge mistake??? And he works for PSA??? What about other items with his COA now?

It can be seen here: http://www.history.com/shows/pawn-st...say-it-aint-so


watch the whole thing as this goes on for the whole show.

I was at the auction where that Joe Jackson was sold.
It was a cut signature.
I would not have bid on it due to my aversion to cuts that I have not cut up myself and because I was never sure if he could really sign.
Herman Darvick is now an expert with JSA.

[Herman Darvick]

Originally Posted by Ringking

I just heard about the goof on pawn stars last night. There was a book that a guy had for sale that was signed by Shoeless Joe Jackson. It had a COA from Herman Darvick. Herman is a person that sold something signed by shoeless joe for 23 grand a few years ago. Long story short...the book was a fake and the Pawn Stars are out 13 GRAND on the item. To make matters worse, they sent the book to PSA/DNA and it came back with a rejection letter saying that the book showed signs of being traced. How can such a self appointed expert make such a huge mistake??? And he works for PSA??? What about other items with his COA now?

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 signature on that website as well and compare it to the one in the book. His 1951 signature on his will is here: http://www.blackbetsy.com/jacksonWill.html If you'd like to contact me, my email address is hdarvick@yahoo.com

[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?

[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.

[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?

[Herman Darvick]

Originally Posted by Ringking

I just heard about the goof on pawn stars last night. There was a book that a guy had for sale that was signed by Shoeless Joe Jackson. It had a COA from Herman Darvick. Herman is a person that sold something signed by shoeless joe for 23 grand a few years ago. Long story short...the book was a fake and the Pawn Stars are out 13 GRAND on the item.

To make matters worse, they sent the book to PSA/DNA and it came back with a rejection letter saying that the book showed signs of being traced.How can such a self appointed expert make such a huge mistake??? And he works for PSA??? What about other items with his COA now?

It can be seen here: http://www.history.com/shows/pawn-st...say-it-aint-so


watch the whole thing as this goes on for the whole show.

PSA/DNA is wrong. In December 1990, I sold the first authentic signature of Joe Jackson at my auction for $23,100. I authenticated it. To put the price in perspective, in 1990 you could buy a complete collection of the autographs of all 40 U.S. Presidents, from Washington to G.H.W. Bush, for less than $23,100! It was illustrated actual size in my catalogue. It was bought by Leland's auctions and traded to Barry Halper the next day. Google "Joe Jackson" and "23,100" as see how many websites (including books) report this sale. The authenticity of the "Joe Jackson" has never been questioned. 3 1/2 years later, in 1994, I was shown the book bearing a "Joe Jackson" signature which I authenticated and issued a COA. I still believe it is authentic. In this Forum, Mike Nola, Official Historian of The Shoeless Joe Jackson Virtual Hall of Fame Web Site, criticizes PSA/DNA's two major reasons for not certifying its authenticity as read out loud from their letter to Rick on Pawn Stars, "drawn" and "pressure": "Has anyone there given any thought to the fact that the same characteristics that apply to tracing (i.e., pressure points, delays, etc., etc......) pretty much apply to someone such as Joe Jackson who would have been 'drawing' his name based on a pattern taught him by his wife. ... The signature on the book looks different than the one that appears on his will, but the one on his will appears different that the one that appears on his 1941 mortgage note and that one appears different that the one on his 1949 drivers license. In other words all his signatures differ somewhat, since he was just tracing a pattern taught to him by his wife Katie." One more thing: In 2006, I was asked by PSA/DNA to be one of their authenticators. I accepted their offer and signed a 3-year contract. In February 2009, I eMailed PSA/DNA that I did not want to renew my contract and wanted my signature taken off all PSA/DNA Letters of Authenticity issued after the date of my eMail. I have not been a PSA/DNA authenticator since February 2009.

[packs]

It sounds like Joe Jackson doesn't really have a signature so nothing he's ever signed should be considered an autograph. Him drawing his name is equal to him drawing a smiley face or any other doodle, no?

[travrosty]

now mr. darvick is a baseball autograph authenticator, is the babe ruth siganture on the cover of your book "collecting autographs" a real babe ruth autograph, mr. darvick?

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Herman Darvick

The authenticity of the "Joe Jackson" has never been questioned.

Of course it's been questioned. Many, many, times. There is no definitive answer, and there never will be.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Of course it's been questioned. Many, many, times. There is no definitive answer, and there never will be.

and I guess that's just the autograph business in a nutshell David. It really blows

[travrosty]

he was a psa authenticator for over 3 years and is now turning against his old company. wonder if spence, his new boss thinks its a real jackson autograph?

[RichardSimon]

Something I don't quite understand here,,,
Pawn Stars, which I have watched for a grand total of 5 minutes, when they had Orville Wright signatures brought into the store, sent the book with Joe Jackson's autograph to PSA? Isn't this the show that trumpets the arrival of Drew Max (he authenticated the Orville Wright signatures) when he arrives at their store.
I would love to know why Drew Max was not used to examine this Joe Jackson autograph. I would love to know what Drew Max would have said on the air about this Joe Jackson autograph.

[Herman Darvick]

Originally Posted by Ringking

I just heard about the goof on pawn stars last night. There was a book that a guy had for sale that was signed by Shoeless Joe Jackson. It had a COA from Herman Darvick. Herman sold an autograph signed by shoeless joe for 23 grand 18 years ago. Long story short...the PSA/DNA said the book was a fake and the Pawn Stars are out 13 GRAND on the item.

To make matters worse, they sent the book to PSA/DNA and it came back with a rejection letter saying that the book showed signs of being traced.

But since Joe Jackson was taught how to sign his name by his wife, it would look slowly written i.e traced/

Herman Darvick worked for PSA/DNA from 2006-2009; he did not renew his contract. Letters like the one Rick got was one of the reasons Herman Darvick left PSA/DNA over 3 years ago. http://www.history.com/shows/pawn-st...say-it-aint-so


watch the whole thing as this goes on for the whole show.

Any questions? Contact me at hdarvick@yahoo.com

[Stalwart Fellow]

The current item in question is circled in green.

Assume that it is likely a fake and then have it prove its authenticity?

If genuine, it was a hell of an item to be left behind in a home that was foreclosed upon as the seller stated on the episode of Pawn Stars.

Many scenarios...
HDCERT.JPG

Jacksonsix.jpg



I personally have concerns with the open "o's" in the Pawn Stars item.

The excessive shakiness.

I feel the item may have been designed to fool and then things got carried too far.

The owner may have known the lack of value and therefore had no problem washing his or her hands of the item and certificate, leaving them both behind in the foreclosed home.

[Stalwart Fellow]

oops, repeat post.

[Stalwart Fellow]

Originally Posted by Stalwart Fellow

The current item in question is circled in green.

Assume that it is likely a fake and then have it prove its authenticity?

If genuine, it was a hell of an item to be left behind in a home that was foreclosed upon as the seller stated on the episode of Pawn Stars.

Many scenarios...
Attachment 74162

Attachment 74163



I personally have concerns with the open "o's" in the Pawn Stars item.

The excessive shakiness.

I feel the item may have been designed to fool and then things got carried too far.

The owner may have known the lack of value and therefore had no problem washing his or her hands of the item and certificate, leaving them both behind in the foreclosed home.

Also note the difference in the "e" that PSA stated had been erased then re-done.