Rare Shoeless Joe Jackson autograph

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

-1

Yes, if the prints are from 1911 and the ink is from 1911, then they are probably good. Do you know anyone who tests ink on autographs prior to selling them? If you were a forger, you wouldn't try to duplicate the aging/fading of the ink to match some of the commons that you were slipping your high-$ items in with?

Also, take a few minutes and look at all of the commons - the aging/fading/whatever you want to call it, differs among them. My guess would be that most, if not all, are authentic. But the Matty and Jackson? …they match each other pretty well and are crystal-clear.

And we have seen plenty of forgeries where the 'experts' thought the ink 'looked' vintage.

Quite a number of years ago, an associate of mine had ink tested. We were trying to nail Ron Dross, that big fat SOB who was probably the first modern day forger of baseball autographs. May he not RIP.
Ink testing is quite expensive, thousands of dollars for one item.
The test will only tell you when the ink was manufactured, not when it was placed on the paper. Old ink is available and can be obtained by anyone if they search for it. I was at an antiques/collectibles show in AC and saw a dealer with a pyramid of old unopened ink bottles.