With no resolve:)

I'm not an auto expert, but the first time I saw the Jackson sig in question, I said to myself, "no way is that real." Just doesn't have the same characteristics of the known authentic Jackson sigs.

Same for me on the Matty. Not an expert but just didn't look right. I have a hard time with the fact that these would even exist. Reminds me of those Ruth autographed photos in REA recently (I think it was REA).

The issue I have is that someone who is illiterate is going to have a hard enough time signing their name, but then add a place and date? Doesn't seem right. You look at the stuff Stan Coveleski signed and he always signed just his name.

oh, there's a resolve Shells...the Joe Jackson in the original post is a dime store phony, IMHO. If it's too good to be true it usually is. I respect the opinions of members here who have forgot more than I will ever know.

The story is ludicrous with this BARN FIND crap. That's where the story goes south for me...at the beginning. Honestly, the story is ridiculous, PURE AND SIMPLE. Just because the knuckle dragging Neanderthals at PSA say it's so, doesn't mean JACK. Their reputation is falling like crude oil, and this fiasco will only add to it.

Somebody is about ready to get taken behind the BARN and beaten like a red -headed step child.

From Chuck's post :"The story is ludicrous with this BARN FIND crap. That's where the story goes south for me...at the beginning. Honestly, the story is ridiculous, PURE AND SIMPLE. Just because the knuckle dragging Neanderthals at PSA say it's so, doesn't mean JACK. Their reputation is falling like crude oil, and this fiasco will only add to it."

Chuck I agree with you totally. My only exception is concerning their reputation falling. I believe it has fallen, is falling and will continue to fall amongst the knowledgeable collectors , such as those on this site, but I still believe that the unknowledgeable collector, the novice collector, and the easily persuaded or impressed collector will still be subject to their "impressive" credentials and slick LOA to guide them in their purchasing experience whether good or , mostly bad.

I think the Joe has become the new I found it autograph of the year.:p

If I actually found something worthwhile in a barn, I would leave out the part about the barn. Not sure why auction houses still think that this ebay-style story is appealing to bidders.

Oh I don't know. Didn't they find millions of dollars in the form of vintage cars in a barn a few months back.

Of course they were weathered unlike these autographs.

I have had the pleasure of digging through boxes of old papers and photo albums, found in barns, sheds, wooden garages, old houses, etc. - you name it. Needless to say, only the stuff found in actual houses survived in decent shape, and most of the time it had been looked at so often that it was as worn as an old comic book. The other papers were generally musty, mildewy, stuck together, ripped to pieces, water-damaged, cat-pissed-on, etc. The idea of something surviving 100 years in a barn in pristine shape is really unbelievable.

barnfind w/cars=GOOD

barnfind w/cards=BAD

now that's funny!:D

YES! Rob Lifson had a Shoeless Joe Jackson portrait photo signed in his auction over 20 years ago, I think. It had a glaze like substance to preserve the signature. I'll locate the auction and scan it. I believe it was authenticated by Charles Hamilton? It has been awhile.

Albert

Robert Edward Auction Sept 18, 1994 Pre internet.


Albert

Albert,
The Joe Jackson photo you listed here as part of an REA auction was also sold in the Barry Halper Collection auction by Sotheby's in 1999 as lot 455. It sold for $43,125 in the auction. I remember this lot at the time as being touted as the only known Jackson signed picture.
As to my knowledge it has not entered the market since then, although I could be wrong and missed it if it reentered the market.
The only thing known is that the picture is from 1912 and the signature ( if it is real) is as well according to the lot description in the catalog.
Looks different from the one in Heritage supposedly just 1 year apart assuming it was " signed" in 1911 as listed on the photo's date.

Jackson photo bidding up to 90,000 dollars as of this morning!

n54 did its job again :D

Wow.

The Giants trained in Marlin, TX didn't they?

Yes, I mentioned that in Post #50 in this thread:

...In The Glory of Their Times, Fred Snodgrass says, after McGraw offered him a contract for the 1908 season:

"Well, as you can well imagine, I was on that train four days later, going to marlin Texas...The Giants had bought a piece of property in Marlin, Texas, a town of about 4,000 or 5,000 people, and had constructed a bal, park there for spring-training purposes...We trained there every spring I was with the Giants, which was until 1915..."

The Giants photos were taken in late September or early October of that year...at least that is what the player selection tells me.

Tom C