Rare Shoeless Joe Jackson autograph

[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.

[Bugsy]

Originally Posted by 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.

+1

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by 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.

-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.

[w7imel]

Scott, Is there a way to test the ink for how old it is? I realize something like this would most likely be expensive but for one of the rarest autos out there I believe the piece of mind would be worth whatever it cost.

[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.