Shoeless Joe Jackson Auto- Fake?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Awesome thanks. First impression is that the two capital J's in the '11 photo don't look the same as the rest, and the c is more open at the top. And we still have the Alexandria problem.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Awesome thanks. First impression is that the two capital J's in the '11 photo don't look the same as the rest, and the c is more open at the top. And we still have the Alexandria problem.

The Alexandria text is not a problem to me. In my opinion, that was clearly written by someone else.

[SteveS]

I don't think it can be said with absolute certainty either way without knowing for sure that the ink has been on the photo since 1911. If that can be shown, it would be very convincing to me, as I doubt anyone would be signing his name back then so similarly to his actual signature that we'd be debating it 110 years later. That "E" is very distinctive, and even his wife didn't do it that way when she signed for him. But no matter what, I don't believe that he wrote the "Alexandria 1911."

[Jobu]

I don't think there is anyone who is stating that he also wrote Alexandria.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Jobu

I don't think there is anyone who is stating that he also wrote Alexandria.

Right, but if they are the same hand as some experts have opined, that of course rules out Jackson.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Right, but if they are the same hand as some experts have opined, that of course rules out Jackson.

Hasn't the hobby deteriorated enough that the authentication on this one will be golden until the end of time? Seems there is always at least two buyers whose desire to own things far exceeds the desire to be certain the item is genuine.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Hasn't the hobby deteriorated enough that the authentication on this one will be golden until the end of time? Seems there is always at least two buyers whose desire to own things far exceeds the desire to be certain the item is genuine.

Yeah that's the power of third party authentication. It at least shifts the burden of proof back to the party claiming inauthentic.

[Jobu]

Being written by the same person would certainly rule out ol Joe. What handwriting expert has made this claim?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Right, but if they are the same hand as some experts have opined, that of course rules out Jackson.

[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.”

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

The Alexandria text is not a problem to me. In my opinion, that was clearly written by someone else.

I can see it either way. But certainly some experts see it as the same hand.

[Peter_Spaeth]

All the other signatures have a c that is nearly closed at the top. They're very consistent.

[ThomasL]

I would suggest reading the thread about this same topic from 2015 for those who have not as some of this is explained there by folks better at it and more experienced than I

The case for its all written by the same hand - Written at same time with same instrument I believe was a big part of it.
T
Someone asked about other Jackson signatures from 1911 on documents...as for as I know there arent any, but Mike Nola is who needs to be asked that he probably knows. (there are some alleged on baseballs and they all look like the small scratchy shaky signatures that are on every thing else he signed)

This 1911 photo if signed by Jackson would mean that he basically just learned to write and wrote better at the beginning (presuming he learned after being married to Katie who taught him) than he would just 4 years later

Some are double posts but here are some signatures 1915-1921 and a 1945 drivers license

[ThomasL]

IDK the more I look the more I might think it might not be the same hand...but I know two very well respected autograph experts who are of the opinion it is so thats what Ive really went off of bc they would know better than I. Some of it looks the same to me but that could be happenstance I guess

Here's the 1911 photo cropped and turned

[Peter_Spaeth]

Wife's signature. Capital looking K, regular looking e.

https://robertedwardauctions.com/auc...gned-his-wife/

[Jobu]

Thanks for the info - I am enjoying this thread.

I agree same pen and same date, but "Here, please sign this" and then Smith immediately adding the date and location using the pen in his hand that Jackson just returned seems perfectly plausible to me. And, to me, there is nothing the same about the signature and the rest of the writing. But - I am not a handwriting expert.

I did read the old thread (https://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=201313). There it says that HA noted the inscription as being in the photographer's hand, so maybe my hope for some of Smith's writing in the album Rhys now owns will come to pass.

There are also people in that old thread that questioned the Matty signature, but as I pointed out in post 135 in the current thread, after seeing the 1911 newspaper premium, logic dictates that the Matty is almost certainly legit.

I still see a ton of variation in all of the known to be legit signatures, and the 1914 and 1916 PSA examples (https://www.psacard.com/autographfac...oe-jackson/21/) on documents look somewhat fluid. His later signatures get much worse, but that happens to tons of people as they age, and I would guess more so if they write very little.

Originally Posted by ThomasL

I would suggest reading the thread about this same topic from 2015 for those who have not as some of this is explained there by folks better at it and more experienced than I

The case for its all written by the same hand - Written at same time with same instrument I believe was a big part of it.
T
Someone asked about other Jackson signatures from 1911 on documents...as for as I know there arent any, but Mike Nola is who needs to be asked that he probably knows. (there are some alleged on baseballs and they all look like the small scratchy shaky signatures that are on every thing else he signed)

This 1911 photo if signed by Jackson would mean that he basically just learned to write and wrote better at the beginning (presuming he learned after being married to Katie who taught him) than he would just 4 years later

Some are double posts but here are some signatures 1915-1921 and a 1945 drivers license

[SteveS]

I'm not sure that Joe would have signed it in front of the photographer. He was worried that his teammates would discover his illiteracy. I can't see him standing in front of a photographer while his wife sets out a sample signature that he practices copying until he feels comfortable enough to try it on the photo. Maybe Joe signed it in pencil and the photographer went over it in ink to "clean it up," then added the other stuff. The first "o" does appear to be scratchy.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Jobu

Thanks for the info - I am enjoying this thread.

I agree same pen and same date, but "Here, please sign this" and then Smith immediately adding the date and location using the pen in his hand that Jackson just returned seems perfectly plausible to me. And, to me, there is nothing the same about the signature and the rest of the writing. But - I am not a handwriting expert.

I did read the old thread (https://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=201313). There it says that HA noted the inscription as being in the photographer's hand, so maybe my hope for some of Smith's writing in the album Rhys now owns will come to pass.

There are also people in that old thread that questioned the Matty signature, but as I pointed out in post 135 in the current thread, after seeing the 1911 newspaper premium, logic dictates that the Matty is almost certainly legit.

I still see a ton of variation in all of the known to be legit signatures, and the 1914 and 1916 PSA examples (https://www.psacard.com/autographfac...oe-jackson/21/) on documents look somewhat fluid. His later signatures get much worse, but that happens to tons of people as they age, and I would guess more so if they write very little.

The "e" in Alexandria is weird like the "e" in Jackson, no? Like a backwards 3/capital E.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Jobu

There are also people in that old thread that questioned the Matty signature, but as I pointed out in post 135 in the current thread, after seeing the 1911 newspaper premium, logic dictates that the Matty is almost certainly legit.

Take a look at the signatures of Marquard, Crandall, and Latham on your 1911 newspaper premium — they are each different, in terms of placement and style, from the photographs at auction.

It would appear that this would be an example of the use of facsimile signatures at least on the premium, as Tom suggested above. Either that, or Marquard, Crandall and Latham signed multiple copies of the same photo in different places. This muddies the waters for me.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

I would suggest reading the thread about this same topic from 2015 for those who have not as some of this is explained there by folks better at it and more experienced than I

The case for its all written by the same hand - Written at same time with same instrument I believe was a big part of it.

I just read the other thread in its entirety. I must have missed the part where anyone at all, let alone an expert or even an "expert", chimed in with any arguments whatsoever that explained in detail why this couldn't possibly be his signature or why they believe the signature and inscription were written in the same hand.

All I encountered were dozens of people saying things like, "no way, can't be his, it's too big", or "FOUND IN A BARN lololol", or "ya, "found in a barn" bahaha", or "Joe couldn't possibly have written that, look how clean the Alexandria text is", or "Joe was illiterate! He couldn't have signed it", and a few other gems.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I just read the other thread in its entirety. I must have missed the part where anyone at all, let alone an expert or even an "expert", chimed in with any arguments whatsoever that explained in detail why this couldn't possibly be his signature or why they believe the signature and inscription were written in the same hand.

All I encountered were dozens of people saying things like, "no way, can't be his, it's too big", or "FOUND IN A BARN lololol", or "ya, "found in a barn" bahaha", or "Joe couldn't possibly have written that, look how clean the Alexandria text is", or "Joe was illiterate! He couldn't have signed it", and a few other gems.

On Blowout there is a link to Peter Nssh's lengthy archived post on this. I can't post it here because of the rules though.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snowman

The Alexandria text is not a problem to me. In my opinion, that was clearly written by someone else.

I think the part I have trouble with is that Frank Smith, for reproduction purposes, would enhance the signatures on his photos. His goal was a great and complete end product not that the sigs were 100% original. Fast forward to the 21st century and that innocent effort renders these questionable. If he or someone else wrote on the Jax photo what was to stop him with filling in other gaps?