PAWN STARS Shoeless Joe Jackson signed book...

[Shoeless Moe]

The bigger question is why would Shoeless Joe sign that book. The signature can be debated and for a guy who couldn't write it's always going to look shakey. 50 people could say yes it looks good another 50 could say no it looks bad. And u could have 10 "experts" look at it and again 5 say good 5 say no good.

So there is no way anyone will ever know with 100% certainty if it's good or bad.

However. I think the real question is why would Joe sign that book? He has virtually no history of autographing "anything". Anything, other then a few legal documents and a few baseballs, that usually were team signed balls when "he was playing".

His wife did ALL his signing of autograph requests.

So why out of the blue does he sign "one" book. And I'm not sure of the contents, but if anyone is please chime in, isn't the book slightly negative toward him.

No one, including Herman will know with certainty if that sig is real, but history of JJ tells us more likely it is not.

[Stalwart Fellow]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

The bigger question is why would Shoeless Joe sign that book. The signature can be debated and for a guy who couldn't write it's always going to look shakey. 50 people could say yes it looks good another 50 could say no it looks bad. And u could have 10 "experts" look at it and again 5 say good 5 say no good.

So there is no way anyone will ever know with 100% certainty if it's good or bad.

However. I think the real question is why would Joe sign that book? He has virtually no history of autographing "anything". Anything, other then a few legal documents and a few baseballs, that usually were team signed balls when "he was playing".

His wife did ALL his signing of autograph requests.

So why out of the blue does he sign "one" book. And I'm not sure of the contents, but if anyone is please chime in, isn't the book slightly negative toward him.

No one, including Herman will know with certainty if that sig is real, but history of JJ tells us more likely it is not.

Well reasoned and convincing argument as to why the item should not have been given written authentication.

Often such authentication does offer the naive a certain consolation.

Sure, the item can be sold then resold! There are many trusting fools with cash to fritter away.

[mr2686]

That's exactly what I said back on page 7. I can't believe this is still going on.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by mr2686

That's exactly what I said back on page 7. I can't believe this is still going on.

Mike, you need to set your post count to 80 in the User CP. This is only page 2.

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by deertick

mike, you need to set your post count to 80 in the user cp. :d this is only page 2. :d:d

:d:d:d

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by mr2686

That's exactly what I said back on page 7. I can't believe this is still going on.

I cannot believe this is still going on and it is not even in the autograph section where it belongs.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

The bigger question is why would Shoeless Joe sign that book. The signature can be debated and for a guy who couldn't write it's always going to look shakey. 50 people could say yes it looks good another 50 could say no it looks bad. And u could have 10 "experts" look at it and again 5 say good 5 say no good.

So there is no way anyone will ever know with 100% certainty if it's good or bad.

However. I think the real question is why would Joe sign that book? He has virtually no history of autographing "anything". Anything, other then a few legal documents and a few baseballs, that usually were team signed balls when "he was playing".

His wife did ALL his signing of autograph requests.

So why out of the blue does he sign "one" book. And I'm not sure of the contents, but if anyone is please chime in, isn't the book slightly negative toward him.

No one, including Herman will know with certainty if that sig is real, but history of JJ tells us more likely it is not.

I asked Herman these questions:

• Why would it be smooth flowing, relative to known sigs? (see Stalwart Fellows post above)
• Why would he sign a BOOK when he was so apprehensive to sign his MORTGAGE and WILL?
• 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?

I have not received any answer as yet. I now lean toward agreement with the PSA assessment.