Black Sox Memorabilia Up For Auction

[MacDice]

What do the auto experts think?

http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story...ilia-auctioned

[shelly]

Originally Posted by MacDice

What do the auto experts think?

http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story...ilia-auctioned

About what

[packs]

I would have serious doubts. Why would Joe Jackson, someone widely thought of as illiterate, sign the sweet spot of a baseball?

[RelicSports]

I agree with Packs...Jackson putting his sig on the sweet spot seems a little off to me (not judging the actual signature as I really am unsure of Joe Jackson sigs...)

[packs]

I immediately got the "too good to be true" vibe from it. No opinion on the rest of the pieces. The baseball sticks out most because it seems so unlikely that Jackson would have signed it, let alone on the sweet spot, which is exactly where you'd want such a valuable signature to be.

[jad22]

Comes with JSA and PSA/DNA certs.

[packs]

I can't speak to authenticity because I don't know enough about Joe Jackson's signature to offer any meaningful insight. I'm only speaking from a gut feeling POV. It shouldn't exist but I suppose it could.

[Runscott]

"Swede" Risberg makes an appearance on the ball, his bold signature evoking the threatening presence which led Shoeless Joe to declare: "the Swede is a hard guy".

The Swede was such a hard guy that he could spell his last name any way he wanted, and no kid was brave enough to correct him.

[David Atkatz]

Garbage.

[Runscott]

My last post was to point out one potential issue and see what others might have to say about it. I am no expert on any of the players' signatures that are on this ball. I read the letters that accompanied it, expecting to see something about possible tracing or repair to some areas that affected signatures - with all the shellac, chipping and white paint splatter, I don't think 'modified' areas of some signatures would be unexpected.

edited to add: Anyone who reads my posts regarding memorabilia knows that I have the utmost respect for Ken's thoroughness in id'ing game-used items (photo-matching, etc.). If you take a look at the COA's he has provided for this auction, you will note that both the JSA and PSA letters have December dates - Ken obviously thought this item important enough to have both of the major authentication companies take fresh looks at it.

[7nohitter]

Originally Posted by Runscott

edited to add: Anyone who reads my posts regarding memorabilia knows that I have the utmost respect for Ken's thoroughness in id'ing game-used items (photo-matching, etc.). If you take a look at the COA's he has provided for this auction, you will note that both the JSA and PSA letters have December dates - Ken obviously thought this item important enough to have both of the major authentication companies take fresh looks at it.

Excellent point. At first I was going to lambaste the item, but saw that it is a Goldin auction...I know Ken performs due diligence.

[khkco4bls]

David you say it's garbage give a reason why. how is it that you possibly forge a ball like that

[w7imel]

Originally Posted by khkco4bls

David you say it's garbage give a reason why. how is it that you possibly forge a ball like that

Oh boy here we go again

[Runscott]

Kevin - I think forgery skills are well beyond what most of us would think. We probably accept many of them as authentic.

[Runscott]

For instance, I can think of at least one huge $ ball that I am positive is a forgery and David is certain is real. It is scary out there.

[Runscott]

...and my comment is not regarding David's expertise, but rather on the disagreement in the hobby over some very expensive items.

[kengoldin]

I wanted to comment on these comments, as a member of net54.

First off, as many of you know, I started off as a teenager collecting team signed balls. At one point, I owned what I consider the #1 or one of the #1 balls in the hobby, a 1915 Red Sox ball with Babe Ruth (which was sold to me in the late 1980s by Josh Evans). Unfortunately, I lost that ball and several other when my house was robbed while my ex wife was living in it and I was not (no comments please). I also own virtually a full run of team signed balls from every pennant winner from 1923 to the present, with a decent amount prior to that going back to 1909 Detroit.
I obviously have seen a number of 1920 or earlier balls, and from holding this ball, there is no doubt in my opinion this is definitely a 90+ year old ball. It looks like every other ball I have seen (or own) from that period.

Upon getting the consignment, I wanted to get modern letters from PSA/DNA and JSA. They now have equipment that they did not have years ago, such as the digital boxes they use to blow up images, look at in different light such as UV to spot removals, etc.
Both PSA/DNA and JSA saw the ball (JSA in NJ, PSA we shipped to CA). They both issued letters in Dec 2014.
As far as the Risberg, our site has a function to allow you to blow an item up to 10x or more the size you see. Instead of saying its a misspelling and he dotted an 'i' there, I suggest you blow it up, and then hit the little magnifying glass symbol to blow it up super HD. you will see it is not an 'i' but is an inkdrip from the prior letter. After reading the posts on the forum, I personally emailed and called JSA as well as PSA/DNA with a link to the post about the supposed misspelling. Jimmy Spence told me to grab the ball and look at it and I will see its not an 'i' but a drip. I took it out of the vault and he is correct. PSA/DNA also confirmed their LOA , issued just 2 weeks ago.
The ball does have some scattered enhancements where the shellac has peeled especially, and is noted in the description.
This ball has been sold twice previously, both at major auction houses, most recently two years ago in a platinum auction of Heritage. I am sure the public and this board has had many years and many times to look and review the ball.
I am sure the discussion will continue, ( but I apologize in advance for not being part of the back and forth banter) but in fairness to the consignor I wanted to point out this information, especially with respect to the Risberg name. The auction has not opened yet, it opens Monday. I invite any member who wishes to come to our office and inspect the ball in person any time between now and closing Feb 7. I would highly recommend that before commenting on something. I am aware of a very high value, high profile item that 'failed' authenticity based on images of the item. Based on pictures, this incredible expert (NOT being sarcastic, he is the best or one of the best) said tHe item was not authentic. However, upon seeing it in person apologized and said they were mistaken and that's the danger of giving opinions based on pictures alone. I think in some cases (not the obvious Mantle fakes....) that is a good policy for many on this board to follow.
thank you
Ken Goldin

[Runscott]

Thanks Ken. There are many signatures on this ball, plenty of physical characteristics to consider, and also the general characteristics such as signature flow and pressure comparisons, etc. I doubt that any opinion as to the authenticity of the entire ball would be rendered based soley on one letter in one signature.

[shelly]

Ken, my problem is that a baseball signed by Joe Jackson are not often seen.
Please tell me has there ever been outside of this ball a Joe Jackson signed baseball signed on the sweet spot/ and if so what year.
Every thing I have read about this man says at the time he played for the sox he could hardly write his name, his wife signed for him. It is really hard to believe that he could hold that ball and write his name on the sweet spot when he could not sign a blank piece of paper.
I would be much happier if I new that the ink on that ball was signed at that time. I really don't care about Psa or Jsa. I would like to have a forensic lab test that ball.

[kengoldin]

[QUOTE=shelly;1364743]Ken, my problem is that a baseball signed by Joe Jackson are not often seen.
Please tell me has there ever been outside of this ball a Joe Jackson signed baseball signed on the sweet spot/ and if so what year.

1919 World Series Game Ball Hit for a Home Run By Joe Jackson Autographed on the Sweet Spot By Joe Jackson

$37,203.65
Price Realized

(Includes Buyers Premium)

Robert Edward Auctions
Sold on Jun 9, 1996https://www.pricerealized.com/#!/Ite...By-Joe-Jackson

I would join pricerealized.com as a paying member
that link may not be active to non members, not sure
type in 'joe Jackson signed baseball' you will see plenty of balls, even a bat.
Hunt, REA, Heritage, etc sales back to the 1990s.

To edit this, I just received an email from a baseball historian who specializes in dead ball era signatures. He informed me that one of the 2 'indecipherable' signatures on the ball was Byrd Lynn. I thank him for his info.

[sbfinley]

I have no opinion on the ball's authenticity other then it passed both JSA and PSA. But I've always wondered this: the legend we've all heard was that he was basically incapable of signing his own name without practicing first. Yeah, he was illiterate - but he was also sharp enought to bat .400. Is this myth largely blown out of proportion? He signed both his drivers' licenses and bonds for his brother and was likely asked for his autograph no short of a thousand times in his lifetime. In most instances he likely could have backed out of it, but if he had the mental capacity to hit the way he did, he was probably smart enough to memorize ten letters in order. No?

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by kengoldin

I wanted to comment on these comments, as a member of net54.

First off, as many of you know, I started off as a teenager collecting team signed balls. At one point, I owned what I consider the #1 or one of the #1 balls in the hobby, a 1915 Red Sox ball with Babe Ruth (which was sold to me in the late 1980s by Josh Evans). Unfortunately, I lost that ball and several other when my house was robbed while my ex wife was living in it and I was not (no comments please). I also own virtually a full run of team signed balls from every pennant winner from 1923 to the present, with a decent amount prior to that going back to 1909 Detroit.
I obviously have seen a number of 1920 or earlier balls, and from holding this ball, there is no doubt in my opinion this is definitely a 90+ year old ball. It looks like every other ball I have seen (or own) from that period.

Upon getting the consignment, I wanted to get modern letters from PSA/DNA and JSA. They now have equipment that they did not have years ago, such as the digital boxes they use to blow up images, look at in different light such as UV to spot removals, etc.
Both PSA/DNA and JSA saw the ball (JSA in NJ, PSA we shipped to CA). They both issued letters in Dec 2014.
As far as the Risberg, our site has a function to allow you to blow an item up to 10x or more the size you see. Instead of saying its a misspelling and he dotted an 'i' there, I suggest you blow it up, and then hit the little magnifying glass symbol to blow it up super HD. you will see it is not an 'i' but is an inkdrip from the prior letter. After reading the posts on the forum, I personally emailed and called JSA as well as PSA/DNA with a link to the post about the supposed misspelling. Jimmy Spence told me to grab the ball and look at it and I will see its not an 'i' but a drip. I took it out of the vault and he is correct. PSA/DNA also confirmed their LOA , issued just 2 weeks ago.
The ball does have some scattered enhancements where the shellac has peeled especially, and is noted in the description.
This ball has been sold twice previously, both at major auction houses, most recently two years ago in a platinum auction of Heritage. I am sure the public and this board has had many years and many times to look and review the ball.
I am sure the discussion will continue, ( but I apologize in advance for not being part of the back and forth banter) but in fairness to the consignor I wanted to point out this information, especially with respect to the Risberg name. The auction has not opened yet, it opens Monday. I invite any member who wishes to come to our office and inspect the ball in person any time between now and closing Feb 7. I would highly recommend that before commenting on something. I am aware of a very high value, high profile item that 'failed' authenticity based on images of the item. Based on pictures, this incredible expert (NOT being sarcastic, he is the best or one of the best) said tHe item was not authentic. However, upon seeing it in person apologized and said they were mistaken and that's the danger of giving opinions based on pictures alone. I think in some cases (not the obvious Mantle fakes....) that is a good policy for many on this board to follow.
thank you
Ken Goldin

Hey Ken,
Thanks for providing the link to the pricerealized.com site. I just spent about a half hour looking it over. It's an extremely useful tool!

[shelly]

+1

[djson1]

I saw this ball in the auction too and thought it was suspect. I understand what Ken is explaining, but as another poster mentioned, some of the skills these forgers are capable of are beyond what you might expect. Plus, as many have stated already, I always thought Joe Jackson didn't really know how to sign his name in cursive, particularly during his playing days. Weren't his earlier signatures (if any) in simple print?

[Runscott]

I'm not knocking Ken, as all auction houses handle things the same way (if PSA and/or JSA like it, then we like it and the bidders who don't read Net54 will like it), but Shelly's point is significant. For a ball this important, I would like to see the AH's tell the consignor: "okay, but it goes through physical testing first. It's going to cost you $3,000-5,000 which you eat either way. If it fails, you keep the ball."

There are plenty of places on a ball like this that could absorb a one-time physical testing (with all the chipping, etc), and it would put all doubts to rest. Besides, some day someone will have it tested and what if it fails? That's no good for any auction house that has ever auctioned it, or for PSA and JSA.

Regarding the 'Risberg/Risbirg' issue, there aren't too many exemplars, but I did find a couple where I could see his 'e' leaning toward looking like an un-dotted 'i', and the dot on the ball's 'i' could definitely be ink splatter.

[David Atkatz]

Joe Jackson could write his name--in cursive--during his ML playing career. There are many examples--including legal documents.

I may have been a bit too hasty calling the ball "garbage." That being said, though, I have extremely strong reservations about the ball's authenticity. How many times the ball has been auctioned previously does not strike me as relevant.

[Econteachert205]

It is beyond my abilities to authenticate this piece, so I defer. In my opinion given the amount it would sell for it is not an attractive piece. All I can think about is the opportunity cost of what could be bought instead. Still an ultra tough and cool piece, just not my cup of tea.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Joe Jackson could write his name--in cursive--during his ML playing career. There are many examples--including legal documents.

Here are five from the PSA site. Authenticating a Jackson signature is going to be difficult. With super-rare ones like this, I try to find an example that the one in question might have been copied from - forgers don't guess if it's avoidable. Given that Jackson didn't sign much, the odds of him doing a group of letters exactly alike, more than once, seems very low.

[David Atkatz]

Actually Scott, in the examples you post, his letter formations are quite consistent. (Including the Goldin ball.)

[Econteachert205]

Scott nice job putting those together. The example underneath the goldin ball is super close in style.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Actually Scott, in the examples you post, his letter formations are quite consistent. (Including the Goldin ball.)

I agree - I was talking about exact groupings of letters, not consistent letter formations. That might sound like splitting hairs, but I've seen autographs where you could actually locate the specific physical signature example that the forger had used to create his copy.

[Klrdds]

After reading the posts on here I would like to offer my opinion based on the fact that I am probably one of a few Net 54 members, as well as one of a few collectors to actually own an authentic Joe Jackson signed item. I own his 1948 signed South Carolina driver's license. Before buying that item in 1998 at Sotheby's I researched his signature and since then have researched it as much as I can. Buying a Joe Jackson signed legal document is one thing but buying a baseball is another since there are so few available , and many are forgeries. It is well known that Joe had a hard time signing his name, especially if his wife Katherine was not around because she would hold a card with his name written on it for him to copy as he wrote. If she was not around he would have to do it from memory which was very hard and embarrassing for him. The JOE was the easy part because it was 3 " loopy " letters. The JACKSON became trickier because it was longer with different style of letter formations. When he signed he would have inconsistent signature breaks in Jackson based on if he had his card guide or doing it from memory. That being the case his signatures are usually long and drawn out....look at how he uses space on the flat legal documents. Therefore I decided if I were to buy a Joe Jackson ball it would have to be signed on the sweet spot to allow for the length of his writing needs. I have never bought a ball at this point figuring 1 Joe Jackson signature is pretty fortunate to own. Now with this ball my only concern is that the Joe is the easiest part to forge, the Jackson is trickier. My point of reference is the "s" in Jackson. I have never seen a closed "s" in Jackson, and this ball has one. Also the "ck" transition in Jackson is different to me as well from what I normally see.
As I am no expert just a collector with an opinion I would only consider this ball if I could see it up really close to look for other markers that I use for his signatures. Otherwise I would be doubtful...again I did not say forgery just doubtful.
Sorry to be so verbose on this topic .

[shelly]

I noticed one other thing since Scott posted those pictures. If you notice all the j's slant to the right. On this ball it is to the left. I also agree all the signatures have an open s and this one is closed. Maybe I am nit picking but it is food for thought.
I respect Ken and I know that he would never try and sell anything that he believed not to be authentic. I just feel there really are some questions to be answered.
Like I said in the first post. I dont care if the tpa's said this was good or not.

[btcarfagno]

I recall reading an interview of someone who knew Jackson late in Jackson's life. The interviewee grew up in the town where Jackson had his liquor store and would speak with him often. He said that Jackson absolutely could draw his own name, and that he could easily tell the difference between when Jackson did it and when his wife did. There was no mention of Jackson needing to see his own signature in front of him in order to sign. Then again, this was the 1940's so perhaps by this time he was able to do it on his own?

Tom C

[e107collector]

I always liked reading about Joe Jackson, and collecting cards and various memorabilia of him.

It seems like there is always a debate when some of him items come up for sale. I always enjoy reading other member's opinions and debating certain aspects of his items. Such as this item, and his infamous Black Betsy Bat. I think it adds to the mystique, lore, and legend of Shoeless Joe.

I don't collect autographs, but based on the pics that Runscott posted, there are some differences, when compared to his signatures on legal documents.

Just my two cents.

Tony

[henson1855]

Here is a 1911 signature in the upcoming Heritage Auction. The inscription was added by the photographer according to the description. http://sports.ha.com/itm/1911-joe-ja...p/7130-47002.s

[David Atkatz]

Oh, please.

[Runscott]

There is a Matty sig in the auction, that comes from the same collection.

[jgmp123]

Originally Posted by henson1855

Here is a 1911 signature in the upcoming Heritage Auction. The inscription was added by the photographer according to the description. http://sports.ha.com/itm/1911-joe-ja...p/7130-47002.s

Safe to say this will be pulled soon....

[Runscott]

Any opinions on the Matty or Lajoie? There are 59 others from the 'Frank W Smith' collection as well, pics not yet posted.

[Klrdds]

Originally Posted by henson1855

Here is a 1911 signature in the upcoming Heritage Auction. The inscription was added by the photographer according to the description. http://sports.ha.com/itm/1911-joe-ja...p/7130-47002.s

A waste of money. I do not like it. Buyer beware.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by jgmp123

Safe to say this will be pulled soon....

It better be.

[Runscott]

Here's the Matty.

[David Atkatz]

Come on, Scott. You know that one is as good as the Jackson.

[RichardSimon]

Holy crap. It is not April 1st yet is it?

[Runscott]

And last but not least. I would love to see pics of the ones in the lot of 57:

Cleveland Naps and New York Giants comprise the most thrilling autograph "find" in years!
1911 The Frank W. Smith Collection Balance of Fifty-Seven Signed Photographs.
The complete collection as it was compiled and then stored and forgotten for over a century comprised sixty signed photographs, and here we present 95% of that original population, every image but the "Shoeless Joe" Jackson, Christy Mathewson and Napoleon Lajoie representations that precede this lot. It's a remarkable time capsule from the heart of the Dead Ball Era, a leatherbound scrapbook that recounts a warm spring in Alexandria, Louisiana, where the Cleveland Naps prepared for the approaching 1911 American League season. The New York Giants images were snapped at the 1911 Chicago Cubs' home park, the West Side Grounds, later that same year.

A few exceptions to the theme lead off the album, images shot and signed both before and after the 1911 season, but the remarkable quality is consistent throughout, with bold autographs and minimal wear to the images themselves. What follows is an inventory of contents, beginning at the front of the album and continuing to the end. Note that some of the men apparently didn't ever make the Major League cut and thus are difficult to identify or simply unknown to even the most educated baseball historian:

Ernest Barnard, William Blackwood (Naps traveling secretary) and Edna Jameson (Naps receptionist), Detroit Tigers image unsigned, Fred Sypher (sporting editor of the Youngtown Telegram) and T.L. Terrell (Naps coach), Deacon McGuire (Naps manager), R.J. Gilks (Naps coach), Joe Birmingham, Sam Kennedy (Naps coach), Doc White (Naps trainer), Fred Blanding, Willie Mitchell, Vean Gregg, Cy Falkenberg, George Kahler, Earl Yingling, Gene Krapp, Spec Harkness, Hi West, [unknown], Ben DeMott, Harry Farrwell, [unknown first name] Kraft, Walt Doan, Jack Adams, Grover Land, Syd Smith, Ted Easterly, Judge Nagle, Jack Graney, Ivy Olson, George Stovall, Dave Callahan, Cotton Knaupp, Herman Bronkie, Art Griggs, Gus Fisher, Eddie Hohnhorst, Spud Hennessey (Giants bat boy), John McGraw (removed and graded PSA NM-MT 8), Chief Meyers, Rube Marquard, George Hartley, Hooks Wiltse (lightly smeared), Doc Crandall, Red Ames, Beals Becker, Larry Doyle and Josh Devore, Louis Drucke, Fred Merkle, Arthur Fletcher, Art Devlin, [unknown], Gene Paulette, Bert Maxwell, Fred Snodgrass, Arlie Latham, Red Murray.

The autographs are applied with either pencil or fountain pen ink, and average 8/10 or better with almost no exception. The Naps images are almost exclusively 8x10" in size, and the Giants 5x8", with all exhibiting minor handling wear and a few light to moderate creasing, but none falling below a technical VG rating. The average is somewhere between EX-MT and NRMT.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Holy crap. It is not April 1st yet is it?

The Lajoe and Mathewson have full PSA letters and the Jackson has both PSA and JSA.

Edited to add: I realize that there is reluctance to discuss any possible bogus material that's in a Heritage auction, because they are big and because they are an advertiser here. It would be refreshing to see members IN ADDITION TO THOSE who have been banned from HA, voice their opinions. I feel that most of the large AH's appreciate a mature discussion regarding questionable items. None of them are immune from criticism - it's all about how they respond to it. At best, our feedback helps them provide better service. At worst, it lets them know we aren't blind and are going to yell if they knowingly auction forgeries. Saying it has a PSA and/or JSA certificate doesn't fly with most of us. It's up to the auction house to do a sanity check on big items BEFORE giving them to PSA or JSA.

[jgmp123]

When is the last time that PSA and JSA authenticated two Joe Jackson signed pieces in this close of a timeframe that originated from different collections...something smells...

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

The Lajoe and Mathewson have full PSA letters and the Jackson has both PSA and JSA.

Edited to add: I realize that there is reluctance to discuss any possible bogus material that's in a Heritage auction, because they are big and because they are an advertiser here. It would be refreshing to see members IN ADDITION TO THOSE who have been banned from HA, voice their opinions. I feel that most of the large AH's appreciate a mature discussion regarding questionable items. None of them are immune from criticism - it's all about how they respond to it. At best, our feedback helps them provide better service. At worst, it lets them know we aren't blind and are going to yell if they knowingly auction forgeries. Saying it has a PSA and/or JSA certificate doesn't fly with most of us. It's up to the auction house to do a sanity check on big items BEFORE giving them to PSA or JSA.

Heritage is stating that these items are in PREVIEW and are for "amusement" purposes. They have done this before and much has been made of it here on 54. Even though they claim they have full letters from the TPA's they as of yet might not have them, based on previous claims of Heritage.
According to their rules, they can remove these items if they feel they are not authentic.
Talk amongst yourselves.

ps. Irony here, I have been banned by Heritage for giving my opinion, and allowing it to be printed, to someone they believe is crooked, (I thought this was America) yet my post is sort of explaining what they are doing with these lots.

[Runscott]

Not knowing these signatures that well, all I can say is that the physical prints don't look like they were printed in 1911.

I could comment on Matty, but we have plenty of actual Mathewson signature experts here.