Shoeless Joe Jackson Auto- Fake?

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.”

[shagrotn77]

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

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by shagrotn77

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

[GrayGhost]

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

[Klrdds]

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 .

[Klrdds]

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


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

[FrankWakefield]

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.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by GrayGhost

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

I'm going to differ in my opinion, as I believe it to be the genuine article. Autographs can tend to evolve somewhat with a person's age. The signature on the black & white photo matches up very well with the contract Joe signed in 1920, according to Steve Grad in the film clip on this subject (see the link on Post #4), and I don't disagree. The Shoeless Joe Museum appears to be basing their opinion on the comparison between the photo signature and Joe's signature on his will in 1951. Even comparing those two signatures, I can see a strong resemblance in the way he signed "Joe" and the first four letters in his last name as well. There only seems to be a significant difference in the "son" portion of the signature, as Joe just went with squiggly lines on his will rather than an attempt at getting every letter right like he did on his contract and on the signed photo. In 30 years, and illiterate person could easily get tired of trying to get every letter right and just go with squiggles instead. Ascertaining the authenticity of an autograph is not a complete science, and there is enough consistency for me to believe it is genuine.

[ThomasL]

He literally testified that he could not write his name until 1915...this photo predates that...this was written by the photographer most likely

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

This thread is many years old and many pages long. If I'm repeating myself from so long ago, that's fine.

I have never cared for the autograph on the Jackson photo in question.

After examining many signed photos from that album, it appeared to me that it was a very mixed bag of genuine autographs along with several that were not, in my opinion, signed by the players. It has been so many years since I first viewed this material that the names of any particular players whose autographs were not genuine are currently escaping me, but I have vague recollections that the issues were not just Jackson and really obscure players, but maybe even an instance or two of more common autographs that were signed by someone else. There were so many obscurities in this assemblage; some appearing genuine, others not so much. That album, in its entirety, was not free of issues. I will say that my opinions at the time were only based on viewing scans of the material.

But there's a LOA for the Jackson, so who cares what me or anyone else thinks? /s

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

He literally testified that he could not write his name until 1915...this photo predates that...this was written by the photographer most likely

If someone didn't yet know how to sign their name, how is it that somebody else signing on their behalf would so closely mirror a signature that the person in question hadn't even devised? It's too ridiculous to even consider. There's something else at play here.

The most generous theory would be that yes, Jackson signed the photo sometime later on, then someone else added the location and (approximate) date of when and where it was originally taken.

Again, I'll add the caveat that I have only examined high res scans of the piece. Going solely from that, I also dislike what appears to be zero aging to the ink, or how the ink sits on the photo.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

He literally testified that he could not write his name until 1915...this photo predates that...this was written by the photographer most likely

Sure, no one has ever fudged the truth in a trial, especially one they have a stake in the outcome.

I don't think this testimony is as bullet proof as you think it is.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

He literally testified that he could not write his name until 1915...this photo predates that...this was written by the photographer most likely

I get it. However, just because the photo predates the time he could sign his name doesn't mean he couldn't have signed the photo later as I have speculated. The auto is too close of a match to the one on his 1920 contract in my opinion for it to have been signed by another party.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.”

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.

[bdangelo]

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

[drcy]

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

[BobC]

Originally Posted by drcy

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

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

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.

The writing on the photo dates it to 1911. I don't think anyone has suggested he himself signed it years later, or that that's even a possibility.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The writing on the photo dates it to 1911. I don't think anyone has suggested he himself signed it years later, or that that's even a possibility.

Wasn't sure if that is what David was referring to or not. But again, at best it could only confirm around when the writing occurred, and whether or not the signature and the rest of the writing were from the same ink/pen, and possibly the same or different times.

[drcy]

The point is no one does ink analysis on these autographs.

Ink analysis would determine if the ink's age is consistent with it being from 1911, and help identify a modern fake.

Normally it's time and cost-prohibitive, but this is a $1.4 million dollar autograph.

[ThomasL]

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

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

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.