Rare Shoeless Joe Jackson autograph

[prewarsports]

Just as a side note that I viewed this album in person at the National Convention last year at the Heritage booth. I was skeptical of the autographs but the photographs themselves to appear to be original to the time period, but in pristine condition. They are silver gelatin prints and from what I could tell from a cursory examination, they do appear to be original to the purported date of 1911.

Rhys

[mschwade]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Just as a side note that I viewed this album in person at the National Convention last year at the Heritage booth. I was skeptical of the autographs but the photographs themselves to appear to be original to the time period, but in pristine condition. They are silver gelatin prints and from what I could tell from a cursory examination, they do appear to be original to the purported date of 1911.

Rhys

Here's a few facts that can be confirmed...

Spring Training site for the Cleveland Naps (now Indians) from 1910-1911 was in Alexandria, Louisiana.
SOURCE: http://www.clevelandareahistory.com/...-training.html

Shoeless Joe Jackson played on the Cleveland Naps from 1910-1915.
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoeless_Joe_Jackson

"F. W. Smith, of Cleveland, for 21 years staff photographer for the "Plain Dealer" and "Leader," announces that he has left newspaper work to devote his entire time to home portrait, commercial and speed photography. Good luck to you, friend Smith!"

SOURCE: (Abel's Photographic Weekly, July 1, 1922) https://books.google.com/books?id=NI...Dealer&f=false

Frank W. Smith obviously lived in Cleveland so that would explain the reason they were in Northeast Ohio.

Here's the part I get lost on... The description of the Christy Mathewson photo says, "Mathewson following through on a warm-up toss before a slowly filling grandstand at Chicago's West Side Grounds".

Why would Frank Smith, the Plain Dealer photographer be in Chicago shooting a Giants-Cubs game? Would he pick up a photo from another photographer to get signed? I doubt that. Any thoughts or theories?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by mschwade

Here's the part I get lost on... The description of the Christy Mathewson photo says, "Mathewson following through on a warm-up toss before a slowly filling grandstand at Chicago's West Side Grounds".

Why would Frank Smith, the Plain Dealer photographer be in Chicago shooting a Giants-Cubs game? Would he pick up a photo from another photographer to get signed? I doubt that. Any thoughts or theories?

Tom said the Giants photos were taken in September (would have to be Sept 27-Oct 1, Matty threw Sept 28), so late in the season when the NL outcome was soon approaching. The Giants won the NL pennant that year, with the Cubs finishing second, so one of these two teams was likely to win the pennant. It wouldn't be unusual for the newspaper to send their sports photographer to Chicago to cover a series between the two - 4 games, especially given that Cleveland was in Philadelphia during that period and got back home on October 2 to play Detroit.

[mschwade]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Tom said the Giants photos were taken in September (would have to be Sept 27-Oct 1, Matty threw Sept 28), so late in the season when the NL outcome was soon approaching. The Giants won the NL pennant that year, with the Cubs finishing second, so one of these two teams was likely to win the pennant. It wouldn't be unusual for the newspaper to send their sports photographer to Chicago to cover a series between the two - 4 games, especially given that Cleveland was in Philadelphia during that period and got back home on October 2 to play Detroit.

Thanks Scott.

[Runscott]

My pleasure, Matt - I love digging around MLB REF. I was hoping to find that Cleveland was in Chicago at the same time as the Giants, but that would have been too easy.

Prior to finding out that PSA/DNA had checked out the physical prints, I was very skeptical about this - those wide white borders and the minty appearance didn't look right. But given PSA gave their approval, if HA had not included Jackson, Lajoie and Matty, I would have had no problem believing everything was authentic, or at least would have looked more closely at McGraw, Marquard and a few others (which I have not). The Jackson was just too much, and Matty doesn't match anything any of us have seen (I don't think) - the only thing it has going for it is the inscription, which matches up fairly well with an exemplar on PSA's site.

But you have to remember - the major AH's aren't trying to sell to us. For us, the pieces will sell themselves. They are going after the collectors who don't pay attention to this forum.

Sleep well knowing that if something is bad, none of your internet friends will get burned.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Just as a side note that I viewed this album in person at the National Convention last year at the Heritage booth. I was skeptical of the autographs but the photographs themselves to appear to be original to the time period, but in pristine condition. They are silver gelatin prints and from what I could tell from a cursory examination, they do appear to be original to the purported date of 1911.

Rhys

Rhys, doesn't the sizes and big white borders seem unusual for the 1911 time period?

I can't speak on the autographs, but based on what I see on the Heritage site, and the sizes that all seem to be either standard studio 8x10 or 5x8 + the big white borders, they seem to fit into the early 1920's time period or so.

Doesn't mean he didn't take these pictures in 1911 and then have them developed at a later date, and then maybe track these guys down one by one..........though that then negates the Mathewson.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Doesn't mean he didn't take these pictures in 1911 and then have them developed at a later date, and then maybe track these guys down one by one..........though that then negates the Mathewson.

Or, explains why the Matty may not be good, when many of the commons appear to be.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Or, explains why the Matty may not be good, when many of the commons appear to be.

"If the commons are good, the expensive ones must be good as well."

This is a thought that forgers have been relying on for years.

[packs]

Ordinarily I'd agree but in this case all of the photos are said to come from the same source.

[Runscott]

It's a bit of a conundrum.

When it comes to things like this, I never automatically take these stories as true, regardless of how sweet the little old lady is, etc. If only the Jackson, or only the Jackson and Matty are bad, there are many possible scenarios as to how that occurred. A common misconception is that because forgeries are abhorrent to us, that they are the product of inferior minds. Forgers are not always dummies - often they are both more creative and more intelligent than you.

[chaddurbin]

if the same type of pen is used, with the same consistent amount of aging/fading from the common stars up to the matty...and if the commons are good, then i'd think the lajoie/jax/matty are also good. who back then would even have a joe jackson examplar to forge from? if they're bad then they're all bad...if they're good then they're all good.

now if it can be proven the photos are period but the ink came much later then the possibility of funny business is greater. like i said with a hoard this big psa probably had all these questions in mind while doing the authentication, you would think.