Shoeless Joe Jackson Auto- Fake?
 

Not sure if anyone else saw this, but saw this on Twitter last night and decided to share.

According to the Shoeless Joe Jackson Museum, the 1911 autographed photo that recently sold at Christie's for $1.47mil is a fake auto.

Link to Twitter thread where the Museum alleges it's fake: https://twitter.com/shoelessmuseum/s...96932864663567

PSA authenticated it as well. Huge implications if it's true.

Dan’s opinion is one to be trusted. Someone paid a shitload of money for a cool photo with pen marks on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We were all discussing this on the thread Christie’s Auction Today”

However, did not see this particular info on Twitter or in the news.

Just saw all over USA Today, ESPN, etc reporting it as a record sale for the most paid for an autographed photo.

The plot thickens and we shall see what happens or does not happen in the coming days

What would happen? PSA doesn't have an autograph authentication guarantee.

There was an entire episode of Strange Inheritance concerning the authentication of this autograph and the rest of the group.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypT67jdK6wU

It's interesting that the museum said they would have bid on it had they thought it was legit. So they had the belief before the auction that it was fake. Of course they are under no obligation to inform the auction house of their concerns, but it would be interesting to know whether or not they did convey that information pre-auction. It just seems very difficult to be absolutely sure either way on a Shoeless Joe auto.

SteveS- this is not the first time this has been sold and when it hit the market the first time many experts chimed in that it was fake and believe told the auction house (cant remember which one) and it did no good

There was a big article on it back then but cant seem to find it now...maybe the Hauls of Shame covered it if memory serves me...

ThomasL, thanks for the info! I assume the buyer who decided to drop that much money on it did his due diligence and knew about the controversy and was comfortable with the authentication.

Agreed. IT is interesting that it sold in Heritage Auction in 2015 and sold for I believe $179K so it has been around
Surprised that the Museum waiting until After the Auction to comment on it being fake.

You mean, like, they don't know what they are doing, and arguably never have, starting with the first opinion they aver sold?

What collector in his right mind would trust unbiased Joe Jackson experts over JSA and PSA?

Hi

I do not disagree with you.

I just do not understand why they did not say something prior to the auction (or even after the First Auction at Heritage) and instead waited to put out a TWEET after the auction.

My guess...they might not have known it was up for auction until it was over (I honestly didnt know bc lets be real how often are we checking Christie's for sports auctions)...and also they might have emailed them we dont know...also what good would it do bc people actually did do that when it sold years ago for the first time when it hit the market and it was for not (which they are well aware of at the museum)

They did know that it was up for auction as they said they would have bid on it had they felt it was real. Also, from what I can tell, they did not put out the initial tweet on the issue. Someone tweeted at them asking if the photo would be displayed at the museum at some point, and they responded to that with their opinion of it.

Good day for PSA, between the Jackson and the Gehrig.

Never get cheated! Never ever ever….

That could have just been a flippant remark as Im sure it was well past the point and extremely hard to get registered to bid in that auction (I dont know just guessing there)

That tweet reply I think was made around 8pm est last night and the auction was over or just about over by then (cant find the exact ending time for it) So yes in fact it is very possible they didnt know it was up for auction until it was too late and your example here that they did is based on an incorrect judgment and assumption.

I would suggest asking Dan directly if you are so curious...instead of trying to make an issue out of nothing here.

I would also add what would be the point anyway? This item has been questioned before and well known to be questionable and the previous time attempts to raise a question/issue about it didnt stop it from being sold so why would it this time?

Oh, I'm not saying the museum did anything wrong. I mentioned above that they are not obligated to volunteer their opinion. And in fact, they didn't bring it up until someone tweeted at them. PSA gave its opinion, the museum gave its opinion, and it's up to the buyer to decide whether he's happy with his purchase.

Got ya,

also for anyone who is interest in reading what this board thought about it when it hit the market back in 2015 here is the thread

https://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=201313

While they are maintaining their tradition of excellence, Orlando is long gone. The new regime had a chance to correct or catch their initial mistake of the 1926 Exhibit Gehrig and once again, balked, letting it go to market rather than correcting it.

Guys with deep pockets love buying illusions, it seems. And TPG is always there to deliver. I assume both of these debacles will remain in the hobby because after all, what do guys with opinions on hobby chat boards know about this kinda stuff? 0.0% chance PSA makes any effort to re-examine the Gehrig and the Jackson mistakes.

Ron Keurajian, the author of two volumes of “Baseball Hall of Fame Autographs: A Reference Guide” that also include signature analyses of players from the 1919 Chicago White Sox, said that there are “no genuine signed images of Jackson in existence.”

In its auction listing, Christie’s said the Jackson autograph is “the lone surviving example of any type.”

Keurajian said he was skeptical about the photograph’s authenticity.

“Here’s a guy who was illiterate, but he can write ‘Alexandria’ on the photograph?” Keurajian told Cox Media Group via telephone on Thursday night. “And for those who believe Frank Smith wrote ‘Alexandria’ on the photo, so, he wrote it in the same hand as Jackson’s? That seems highly unlikely.”

In his book, Keurajian describes Jackson’s signature as “rudimentary” and “very easy to replicate.”

What's the story with the Gehrig you guys are talking about?

More on this https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=308821 thread about the Gehrig

Wow. That signature doesn’t look anywhere near the license and will. Refund please!

This photo was first auctioned by Heritage in 2015 / 2016 and was met with much fanfare and the consensus then was that it was fake . Having owned the Joe Jackson signed drivers license for 20 years that was recently auctioned I was asked to render an opinion on the piece as well. I felt it was not good then and I still stand by that opinion .

Here’s the link to Heritage Auctions listing of the item in 2015


https://sports.ha.com/itm/autographs...a/7130-80051.s

1- I'd not buy that.

2- What year was he born? Not that one I don't think.

3- Seems to me there's a bunch of people out there who should learn more about what they're wanting to collect, instead of trusting various self proclaimed graders / authenticators / certifiers.

I did talk to Dan and he gave some really good insight into the details of the signature:

One other hang-up I have is if you look at the E in Joe’s signature when Katie would sign her signature of Joe, she wrote in cursive “Joe Jackson”. When Joe signed his name, he would sign JoE, and the “E” almost looks like a backward 3. If you look at this signature in the photo, it is an upper-case E, and written by someone that knows how to write. She didn’t do the upper-case E. It is my inkling that someone may have tried to pass it off as a real signature. Possibly someone did their research into how he signed vs. Katie.

This is the back bone...and if you question that it all was signed by the same hand (I dont)...go find me a large Joe Jackson signature like this or one with fluid smooth "J" formations on an actual JJ document even.

I wonder if they kept quiet for legal reasons. Had they come out and declared it to be fake, it could've damaged the consignor to the tune of a million dollars. And then, how do they prove it's fake? Authenticators don't agree.

It reminds me of the situation a few years ago, when a well known AH which will remain nameless was offering a glove supposedly used by a very famous pre-war player, from his industrial school days. Some people opined the glove might not be authentic, and noted possible differences between the actual glove and the picture which supposedly photomatched it. As I recall, some people received, or were threatened with, cease and desist letters from attorneys.

Stating a high dollar item is fake could potentially end up in a messy situation it seems to me.

A statement of opinion is not defamatory. That said, the line between opinion and fact can be murky.

I don't know the laws that well but I would not back down from a Cease and Desist order if what I was stating was what I thought was the truth. Freedom of speech and all... but yes, no doubt anyone can sue anyone for almost anything.

Pete, great interview!!! Very good insight/info in Joe and what he may or may not have signed, and why

https://thecreasedcorner.com/intervi...ons-autograph/

Oh I forgot about this barn find. Jackson, Mathewson and Lajoie.

It is all how you word it. In my opinion it is fake is not something they can prevent you from saying.

WOW

So much intrigue and so much behind giving your opinion on it.

The reality is I hope the buyer knows what he is or is not doing related to the purchase and the aftermath of it.

For me I into Joe Jackson and his cards and such but I was never comfortable going after any of his autographs that I have seen.

My sense of the Hobby these days is that many if not most high dollar collectors become more infatuated with slabs than what’s inside them. Good chance the buyer could care less about true authenticity.

I doubt my viewpoint will surprise anyone here, but I'm not convinced that the "museum" isn't at least somewhat biased. First, the "museum" appears to be a single-family home, likely run by one guy and a few part-time volunteers. I'm not saying that to discredit him/them, I'm sure he knows a hell of a lot about Joe Jackson, but I doubt he would know much more than what anyone else could learn by reading the same publicly available information written about Jackson. What would make him (or the "museum") any more of an expert on Joe Jackson's signature than PSA's or JSA's experts? I also think it's irresponsible of him to put out a post saying "this is 100% fake" as if he could possibly know with that level of certainty. Not to mention he didn't provide a justification for his position. He just posted a couple of images of known Joe Jackson signatures from very late in Jackson's life at an age when many people have shakier signatures. I'm not saying it's 100% authentic, but I'm surprised at how much credence is given to the "museum's" opinion. Personally, I would take PSA's or JSA's opinion over the "museum's". It might be fake, but it also might not be.

One thing is clear though, there were two people who wrote on that photo. Whoever signed Joe Jackson's name and someone else who wrote the text below it.

The only way he'd know if it was 100% fake, is if HE signed it!

It just seems fascinating to me that the museum says 100% fake, and in the "Strange Inheritance" episode swarmee posted above, at the 15:40 mark the host asks Steve Grad how sure he is that it's authentic, and he says 100%. No leeway in those opinions. So somebody has to be 100% right, and somebody has to be 100% wrong. And both are considered to be experts in the subject matter. I am neither an expert on Joe Jackson nor his autograph. But based on its scarcity and his known struggle with signing his name, I can't see any way to say with absolute certainty that a purported Joe Jackson signature is authentic (excluding the very obvious fakes, such as on a Bud Selig ball). Maybe someday in the future there will be a way to isolate DNA or a fingerprint on a 100 year-old photo that's been handled by many people. But I assume that the person who spent that much money on it did the research and is satisfied with the purchase. The trimmed Wagner sells for millions, despite everyone knowing that its trimmed.

In trying to find out more about this topic, I found this interesting Joe Jackson item on eBay. Maybe the seller is a member here. But apparently Joe practiced signing his name before placing a signature, and this is a piece of that practice attempt. So maybe his signature varied based on how much practice he got. In any event, after the sale price of the signed photo, maybe this is now a good bargain: https://www.ebay.com/itm/14272455219...AAAOSwpixarEdm

Why is the assumption being made that the "museum" is an expert whose opinion on signature authenticity ought to be respected? I'm ignorant here, so I'm asking this question honestly. Why do people care what this guy thinks? What are his credentials other than being some random fan who bought his house and some memorabilia and lets people tour it for a fee?

I am the Joe Jackson autograph expert here! I own a few of his signatures which were given to me by my father. He got them from his grandfather, whose girlfriend's neighbor's brother's best friend's mistress knew Joe! Here is a GENUINE signature below:

And yes, it is available for $2.5 million USD or you can trade me a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle in PSA 8

Thank you

Note that I said "considered to be." I recall a certain other thread in which the issue was discussed about what makes one person more of an expert over anyone else when it comes to whether two things look alike. While I have no doubt that the gentleman who runs the museum is highly knowledgeable about Shoeless Joe's life and baseball career, I am not convinced that he can say with the 100% certainty that he has that the autographed photo is fake. And while I have no doubt Steve Grad has more skill than the average person when it comes to authenticating autographs, his reputation as an expert in the general public's eye comes from his appearances on "Pawn Stars." But Rick knows that if he ever needs a buddy who's an expert about everything, he can give me a call.

Dan’s definitely not a random fan. LOL. You’d be hard pressed to find anyone who knows more about Jackson than he does. And P.S. Tours are free.

If you have a '52 Mantle signed by Shoeless Joe, I'll give you $5 million.

But this actually happened to me. My grandmother, who grew up in Chicago and didn't know a whole lot about baseball, said that a friend's brother played for the White Sox and gave her a ball signed by the team. She couldn't remember what she did with it, but it was long gone. I asked her when she got it, and she said she was about six years old. Which would have made it 1919. Ugh.

Agreed. And for that matter, why is the other, non-museum person's opininion any better or more respected? The only way you personally can ever be 100% certain that someone's alleged autograph was actually signed by them was if you witnessed that individual actually sign and immediately give back the autographed item to you. With the exception of certain business/legal documents and/or items that were notarized or signed by witnesses (and even then, documents as such have still been known to be faked). My understanding is that no one throughout their entire lifetime ever signs their name precisely the exact same way twice........ever! So how exactly can these so called experts ever really be 100% certain that an autograph they are reviewing after the fact was actually signed by the person it was claimed to be signed by? Truth is, they can't. The only thing they can possibly be 100% certain of is when an autograph is fake and not signed by the person it was supposed to be autographed by. For example, when you see an autographed card of some athlete that wasn't even produced till some time after that athlete had already passed away.

I know a friend who has been collecting autographs mostly TTM since the late 1980s, and probably has somewhere between 500,000 to 1,000,000 autographed items today. He was never big into authenticators, and tried an experiment one time to see if he should look into getting at least some of his items authenticated. He had been somewhere that Sandy Alomar Jr. appeared for a signing back in his playing days, and got Sandy to personally autograph a card for him, so he knew it was 100% legit. He then took another Sandy card, and after practicing the signature from the legit autographed card he'd recently gotten a few times, signed a fake Alomar autograph himself on the second card. He then went ahead and submitted both cards together for authentication to one of the major, recognized autograph authentication and grading companies that is still doing it today. And guess what, the card Sandy autographed for him in person came back as a fake, while the card he had forged Alomar's signature came back as a legit Sandy Alomar Jr. autograph. I'll give you three guesses what his opinion is of these so called autograph experts, and the first two don't count. Needless to say, he's never wasted even a plugged nickel on having anything else of his "professionally" authenticated.

I recall seeing a story about someone at a show. They got an auto from a guest at the show and then walked over to get it authenticated. It was deemed fake.

I can't find the link for it, but I remember seeing a video from a local news channel somewhere that did a report on authenticators. They prepared a fake autographed photo, then took it to a show where that person was signing. The TPG that was offering instant service authenticated it after barely looking at it.

Not surprising at all. And I'll bet it happens more often than you can imagine.

The card doctors and others altering items is bad enough, but it may likely be eclipsed by the fake autographs out there that have been authenticated and encapsulated for decades now by the so called "experts". Some of the estimates that people have put forth over the years as to the overall percentage of sports autographs out there being fakes is truly mind boggling. Big reason that though I have some autographs, it is a very small part of my collection, with most of them being cards distributed as autographed cards by the card manufacturers. Hopefully those are all legit athlete signatures.

I know of at least five athletes who either autopenned those or had family members sign them:
Dak Prescott (Autopen)
Shaquille O'Neal (family members way back when)
Luka (highly likely mom signed many of his RC autos)
Steve McMichael (signed by wife)
Bill Cowher (Signed books) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=464kJ3tMgVA

Bunch of signed books exposed in this thread as autopen:
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1341412
Seth McFarlane: https://www.blowoutforums.com/showth...hlight=autopen
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showth...hlight=autopen
Florida Georgia Line: https://www.blowoutforums.com/showth...hlight=autopen

LOL

And that is exactly why I said "hopefully". Not surprising at all to think that a lot of those auto cards pulled even today aren't always legit. Again, only way to be 100% sure is if the athlete signed the item in front of you, and it never left your sight till you have it in your hand.

Seriously all I can say is ... those who know know... I can 100% vouched for this take by Jason and will go further and say Dan is probably one of the top 5-7 people on the planet that is an expert on Joe Jackson AND one of maybe 3-5 people who have the knowledge enough to render an opinion on this topic.


Again I will challenge anyone to go find a large Jackson signature which this one would be the largest.

People who are experts in Joe Jackson know and those who are also collectors and are aware of the nuances of signatures know even better and Dan is one of maybe 5 people on the planet that checks both those boxes...again if you know you know

Here are some helpful tips for you snowman:

-Putting museum in quotes there to suggest some kind of slight and illegitimacy only highlights your ignorance on this topic so do yourself a favor and stop.

-Yes Joe Jackson and hobby experts, who have no incentive behind rendering an opinion, who know the nuances of Jackson's signature and his history, actually would know better than TPA employees and would actually give an unbiased opinion on the authenticity of a signature than would a company with an preexisting and financially beneficial relationship with an auction house who is selling and gaining a profit (via fees garnished from the sale) and advertisement by selling a rare autograph. To argue otherwise is either ignorant or you are just trying to be flippant...you are beyond naïve if you think TPA companies know better than actually historians and experts on any given narrowed field of study.

-with that...actually NO it is not "irresponsible" of him to put out his opinion, it actually could be said it is more his duty to do so given that he's one of maybe 5 people on the planet that could give such an opinion.

-If you read the 2015 thread about this photo you would see some of the well respect experts express that this is a fake and it has been well known/generally accepted within the hoppy as a fake since then.

-If you also read that you would see that no it isn't clear that "two people" wrote on that photo.

To me, it seems like an obvious fake. The signature is way too nice to be Joe's but, more than that, the "Alexandria" gives it away. It's the same hand as the signature and no way Joe wrote that.

Add Jazz Chisholm of the Marlins. People pay crazy money too for his RC auto and there are noticeable differences throughout the brands in signature style.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great thread. Love this Forum and the experts it brings out.

For me, the most surprising part of the discussion is the fact the Joe Jackson Museum has $1.5 Million laying around to bid on artefacts.

The same PSA and JSA that passed scores, if not hundreds, of fake autographs on vintage cards? Think I'll believe the historians.

On Blowout there are images of quite comparable autographs on legal documents from 15 16 and 20. For example.

Yes, this. PSA is certainly not perfect. My opinion of their services went down dramatically when they authenticated an Eddie Sachs "signed" photo as authentic that is a well-known pre-printed handout. There are literally dozens of the exact same photo in the auto racing memorabilia world but they authenticated it as a legitimate autograph, which it absolutely is not.

There used to be a website that had the 100 most famous fakes that were certified. Can’t remember where.

Likely Hauls of Shame.

Ah. That guy. The article was pretty good regardless.

Yes H of S did an article on this Jackson photo as well as the Mathewson photo when they appeared at auction in 2015 . As I remember he tried to interview HA staff including Mike Gutierrez , who at the time was HA main sports expert . He got no response from them . I tried to find the H of S article but it’s nowhere to be found as best as I can tell.
No offense intended to anyone by mentioning H of S in my post .

I think the site is no more.

No, its still there at - haulsofshame.com

Doesn't look like it has been added to or updated in quite some time though.

I don't see a way to search it for past posts either. It was extensive at one point.

Doesn’t look like you can get to the old articles.

I can't even load old snapshots on Wayback. I give up.

I don't know what this website is, but apparently it has the Hauls site archived. Here is the 100 worst authentications article (without pictures):

WOW data overload.

Interesting Articles

Great stuff

Also worth noting is that the provenance of the photo, at least according to the story in the video someone linked to earlier, is not nothing.

I hate when people speak so authoritatively on these sorts of issues though, as if there's any way they could know with absolute certainty either way. Then they throw the weight of expertise at it by saying something like "The Joe Jackson Museum stated that this autograph is 100% fake." This, of course, is intended to give the reader the impression that some actual museum with a team of expert historians and conservators has examined the photograph and somehow deemed it to be fraudulent. This is deceptive though, as this is a "museum", not a museum. In actuality, it's a guy named Dan who bought a house that Joe Jackson lived in who put some memorabilia inside and let's the public tour it for free. A kind gesture for sure, and probably a great guy with an immense knowledge of Joe Jackson. It reminds me of all the creationists who would write books debating evolutionary biologists in the 80s and 90s. They would always put "Dr. So-and-so" as the author of the book. Then you'd look them up and their "doctorate" degree was always some degree in something like theology from a non-accredited university. Meanwhile, the evolutionary bioligsts they would debate had authored numerous college textbooks and none of them would say "Dr." on the spine, just their first and last names, despite the fact that they all held PhDs in relevant fields from places like Harvard and Stanford.

There is an implication of expertise when someone says a museum has rendered an opinion on some historical document. A guy named Dan who filed as a non-profit and let's people tour his home is a "museum", not a museum. Again, probably a great guy. But as a potential buyer of an important historical document, he's not someone whose advice I would be interested in seeking out.

Mr. Mike Nola of the Museum 9historian, board member) appears to have commented on this photo back at the time of the Heritage sale and did not raise (at least was not quoted as raising)any issue as to authenticity.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/...000-this-month

Different individual than the one now claiming fake, btw.

I took out links to the bogus Halls of Shit website. As O'[keefe once told me, 1/3 of it is true, 1/3 of it is not true and the other 1/3 of it he makes up. Having a few true things makes one think it's all true. Peter Nash is a criminal and should be in jail. No links to that trash. I know some of it is phony because he made up trash about me. So it's not really a debate.
.

I've apologized to Leon in a PM and do so here for posting the links. I meant only to help those above who were looking for the article. Once again, I'm sorry.

So I guess the bottom line is, when there are so few signatures of Joe, and none of them look exactly alike, and he was not really able to sign his name without practicing and/or copying an example his wife set out, unless there is rock-solid provenance, the best that can be said for a purported Joe Jackson autograph is that it's likely authentic (or not), and 100% certainty probably won't ever be determined.

I'm no autograph expert. In other areas (paintings, cards, photos), you probably can never be 100.000% certain something is real you can be 100% sure something is fake.

Those quotes from Ron Keurajian came from this story -- https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/t...G3MVBQL4JBXH4/

At $1.4 million, one could do expert ink analysis.

1. Every Jackson signature that is above question is on a document of some kind so yes there are many that are 100% authentic, they are all on documents.

2. As I said before all his real signatures are smaller than the average persons signature and this photo is very large

3. The photo itself has great providence...not the signature on it.

4. The Js on the photo are smooth and I have yet to find a JJ signed document where they are smoothly formed like these. Also very small/narrow top loops.

5. It seems very likely that the same hand wrote everything on that photo and Jackson 100% could not have done that.

6. He ended his signature almost always with a downward stroke and not an up stroke like on the photo

Jackson's real signatures are very consistent through out time and this photo is not consistent with them.

Im sure better experts can point out more issues but these are the ones I would point of.

Here are a few examples I threw together, these are not to scale as the 1911 photo is much larger than any of the others.
(also notice the change in Buck Weaver's signature from 1917 to 1920-21...his signature is a lot harder to judge if you ask me)
-1915 doc
-1911 photo
-1917 team signed document asking for WS bonus money
-1920-21 court document

He was like that movie where Raul Julia played both the cop and the drug dealer. I never got it.

Could you be more specific about why you think all the writing on the photo is in the same hand? To my completely untrained eye, I can see where the signature and the rest look a bit different.

Yeah, but that would really only help to prove it a fake if the ink was found to be something from after Jackson had passed away. Wouldn't prove he actually signed it, just that the ink may have been from when he was alive and could have signed it.