Shoeless Joe Jackson Auto- Fake?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Leaving Grad aside, has any widely respected autograph expert ever said yes to the 1911 photo? Perhaps that "appeal to authority" doesn't mean much to some people, but I would like to know.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Leaving Grad aside, has any widely respected autograph expert ever said yes to the 1911 photo? Perhaps that "appeal to authority" doesn't mean much to some people, but I would like to know.

In post #220 above, Thomas mentions that JSA also authenticated this photo back when it was for sale through Heritage in 2015. Worth noting is that both PSA and JSA would have had the advantage of holding the entire portfolio of photos together in hand at the time of authentication. Without that portfolio, I doubt it would have been authenticated by either, but that's just speculation obviously.

[packs]

That's really not how things are supposed to be done though. And I think that's my issue overall with this piece. Provenance should not matter one iota when it comes to authentication. We are all conditioned not to believe grandpa's attic story. It should either be authentic or not authentic or an opinion can't be rendered and that conclusion should be made based on what you're looking at.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

That's really not how things are supposed to be done though. And I think that's my issue overall with this piece. Provenance should not matter one iota when it comes to authentication. We are all conditioned not to believe grandpa's attic story. It should either be authentic or not authentic or an opinion can't be rendered and that conclusion should be made based on what you're looking at.

So if there was a film of Jackson signing it you would disregard that because provenance is irrelevant? OK. Does your view also apply to all forms of memorabilia or just autographs?

[Republicaninmass]

Oh well if he was illiterate, his signature would likely change size and shape every time. Abnormally so if he had to really concentrate.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So if there was a film of Jackson signing it you would disregard that because provenance is irrelevant? OK. Does your view also apply to all forms of memorabilia or just autographs?

Just autographs. And no, a video wouldn't suffice. That would be a pretty easy way to scam people, no?

But the same issues with weighing provenance plague memorabilia. I remember someone telling a story about a player selling milestone home run balls two or three times over saying a different ball was the home run ball every time. They were supposed to be real because of the provenance. But they weren't.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Just autographs. And no, a video wouldn't suffice. That would be a pretty easy way to scam people, no?

But the same issues with weighing provenance plague memorabilia. I remember someone telling a story about a player selling milestone home run balls two or three times over saying a different ball was the home run ball every time. They were supposed to be real because of the provenance. But they weren't.

As we've seen, at least sometimes authenticating a signature is not always perfectly straightforward. It seems to me to be crazy to say provenance is always irrelevant. Sure, it may not be conclusive, it may be flawed, but surely it should be considered when available and given whatever weight is appropriate. The fact that you can identify an example of bad provenance doesn't argue for throwing out all provenance IMO.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by packs

Just autographs. And no, a video wouldn't suffice. That would be a pretty easy way to scam people, no?

But the same issues with weighing provenance plague memorabilia. I remember someone telling a story about a player selling milestone home run balls two or three times over saying a different ball was the home run ball every time. They were supposed to be real because of the provenance. But they weren't.

I don't recall home run balls, but I had heard that about Pete Rose and bats from a bunch of hits leading up to the record.

Home run balls wouldn't be impossible though, and it wouldn't surprise me.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by packs

That's really not how things are supposed to be done though. And I think that's my issue overall with this piece. Provenance should not matter one iota when it comes to authentication. We are all conditioned not to believe grandpa's attic story. It should either be authentic or not authentic or an opinion can't be rendered and that conclusion should be made based on what you're looking at.

Agreed, but the problem is no one is still alive today that was on hand to see the item being signed, as is the case with most items from so long ago. And many people hope and want to believe that items were used, belonged to, and signed by certain people from the past. So even though there often isn't first hand verification of such, the provenance becomes a huge factor in determing if many items were actually signed, owned, used by the party they are purported to be.

In the case of autographs, the only way to truly be 100% certain it was signed by the person in question is if you witnessed it being signed yourself. Absent that, there is no 100% certainty, and thus you are forced to consider other factors, such as provenance surrounding such items and the circumstances of their being signed. This is done to determine where on the scale of 0% - 100% the consensus opinion of the public ends up falling as to the authenticity of an autograph. And it is the public at large that really ends up determining if an autograph is authentic or not. The opinions of so called "experts", just like the provenance and other known factors surrounding an autographed item, are simply contributing factors used by the public to decide for themselves if they will accept an alleged autograph is authentic, or not. And in the case of this alleged Jackson autograph it is never more true as you have "experts" giving completely opposite opinions, making other factors such as provenance, all the more important in shaping final public opinion.

And don't discount the fact that the public sees someone pony up $1.4M for the item, and a very large portion become swayed and lean towards thinking no one in their right mind would pay that kind of money for something that wasn't authentic. That in and of itself goes a long way for saying it is a legit auto, and has already been accepted as such by a large part of the collecting public, regardless of what any of us think or say on here.

[packs]

Totally agree but I also think it's important to remember authentication is an opinion and will always be. I'm not asking anyone to find a way to create fact out of something you can't know.

I do think there are instances, like this one, where an opinion should not be given one way or the other. But I do think it's appropriate for a buyer to hear the story associated with an item and make their own decision. I just don't think that story should be taken as fact by the authenticator no matter how trustworthy the source. And I don't say that because people shouldn't be believed. I say that because the opinion is supposed to be unbiased and about the item being examined.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by packs

Totally agree but I also think it's important to remember authentication is an opinion and will always be. I'm not asking anyone to find a way to create fact out of something you can't know.

I do think there are instances, like this one, where an opinion should not be given one way or the other. But I do think it's appropriate for a buyer to hear the story associated with an item and make their own decision. I just don't think that story should be taken as fact by the authenticator no matter how trustworthy the source. And I don't say that because people shouldn't be believed. I say that because the opinion is supposed to be unbiased and about the item being examined.

You are right, but the problem is that there is always going to be some level of bias, no matter what anyone says or does. And I also said the "experts" only give opinions, just as you're saying. And that is also why it is the public that decides if they'll accept something as authentic or not. And the public taking into consideration the overt and hidden biases that may exist in opinions and stories around an item are all just part of the process, and can be wrong or right. I think that a large part of the public itself wants to believe rare items and autos are real and do exist, and because of that can thus possibly add an additional bias on top of everything else.

Here's what I'm 100% certain of when it comes to autographs, that there are many autographs out there that are deemed fakes, but in actuality are real, and there are also many that are recognized as real that are actually fakes.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobC

Here's what I'm 100% certain of when it comes to autographs, that there are many autographs out there that are deemed fakes, but in actuality are real, and there are also many that are recognized as real that are actually fakes.

+1

This is why I have never collected autographs and never will. I can't imagine the feeling I'd have, to build a nice collection of vintage signatures, but always knowing that some percentage of them were, in fact, fakes. Further, not knowing which ones they were.

Look at how many times people post on the autograph forum asking if a signature is good, and some respond "yes" and some "no." It isn't enough to just say: "Know what you are buying," or: "Only buy from trusted sources." With autographs, establishing authenticity is often impossible.

Cards may be altered and GU jerseys or bats might be restored, but at least their authenticity is usually easy to determine.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I've seen so many (alleged) mistakes by JSA (read about them, not witnessed personally) that that doesn't do much for me.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I've seen so many (alleged) mistakes by JSA (read about them, not witnessed personally) that that doesn't do much for me.

I can't speak to the authority of anyone specific in the authentication space. I just don't know enough about it. But I do believe there should be room for human error when it comes to expectations for something like this, but people often don't want to lend it.

I'm reminded of the late 90s and early 2000s when Sony dominated the electronics market, becoming the top seller of TVs by a fairly wide margin. If you were to go into a TV repair shop and ask them which TVs they spent the most time repairing, every single one of them would have answered "Sony". The number of complaints began to mount, and Sony eventually began to garner a reputation for selling poorly made TVs. However, the actual defect rates were better than the competition, but since Sony dominated the market, they also dominated the repair market, causing a major hit to their reputation.

PSA and JSA dominate the authentication market, so it would make sense for them to also dominate the "oops, we fucked up" market as well. The number that ultimately should matter most is one that is nearly impossible for us to get, which is the ratio of correctly authenticated items to incorrectly authenticated items. I don't know how many mistakes we should expect to see from them, but I do know that whatever the number is, it's always going to be too high for some significant percentage of collectors.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I get that but at the same time, on many of these items if I recall correctly, other people pointed to obvious issues which made the errors seem really egregious. And these items supposedly are rigorously scrutinized individually. I don't think that's quite analogous to an inevitable flaw rate in mass production or even the PSA assembly line.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I've seen so many (alleged) mistakes by JSA (read about them, not witnessed personally) that that doesn't do much for me.

https://thecollectorconnection.com/b...x?itemid=21487

"JSA Mistakenly identifies coach George Jendrus Anderson as HOF'er George "Sparky" Anderson who was only 14 years old in 1948 and 10 years away from his major league debut."

Of course if they have the wrong George Anderson how the hell did they authenticate the autograph?

EDIT: This was a mistake and my apologies to JSA. This is a PSA authenticated piece, NOT JSA.

[ThomasL]

TPA do turn away good autographs I know for a fact...Im sure there are several stories like this out there and I dont remember which company he submitted to, but this is a story a friend of mine related to me:

He would attend New York Yankee spring training almost every year in the 60s-70s era and had tons of autographs of those players he got in person including many Thurman Munson signatures...every one of those Munson sigs he sent in was rejected.

I have no doubt JSA makes mistakes but I personally think they make less and I believe are the preferred authenticator of REA which I love as an auction house (they treat people right)...Beckett is the worst at autographs...PSA might be a little better after Keating joined them...but they have a bad track record.

Obviously a big problem for them all is that they like have authenticated bad signatures when they first started, or assumed a signature was authentic that might have sold in a high profile auction (Barry Halper) that wasnt and those are examples they use in their databases. They need to go back and reevaluate and purge bad and questionable signatures from their files...I dont know if they do this or not but they should, it would help.

The some of the best advice I got about collecting autographs is if it makes you feel bad or you question it in any way...dont buy it

[ThomasL]

also would share this story:

I have bought 2 Happy Felsch signatures that I submitted and were rejected by JSA, one I thought was questionable and likely fake (came with a money back guarantee) and one that I think was 100% authentic but was signed on a dark part of a newspaper picture so hard to see. Believe I got my money back on both but obviously lost out on the fees for submission.

I have never submitted to PSA, though I think I would knowing Keating is on their team now which helps, and never will submit to Beckett. Honestly I prefer that an authenticator errs on the side of caution, sure they will fail authentic signatures some times but they will also filter out the fakes more often than not...just my opinion on it and this like everything else is very debatable.

But if a collector is knowledgeable, has a good eye and is 100% comfortable with a signature Im in the camp of dont waste your money bc you probably know better than any TPA....if you are looking to sell unfortunately that goes out the window now unless you are one of a handful of dealers known inside the collector's universe

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

I have no doubt JSA makes mistakes but I personally think they make less and I believe are the preferred authenticator of REA which I love as an auction house (they treat people right)

JSA is known to authenticate items at shows without watching the signings as long as you bought the ticket. So you could swap items with no problem, if you chose.

They also authenticated the T206s outed on this board in Sharpie marker.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=262673 But then, so did SGC and one got through PSA as well.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

https://thecollectorconnection.com/b...x?itemid=21487

"JSA Mistakenly identifies coach George Jendrus Anderson as HOF'er George "Sparky" Anderson who was only 14 years old in 1948 and 10 years away from his major league debut."

Of course if they have the wrong George Anderson how the hell did they authenticate the autograph?

If a data scientist who claims he does not know enough about the authentication space can give the thumbs up on the Jax then JSA surely can. After all, there should be room for human error....i.e. guessing or just taking a leap of faith based on a story or provenance.

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

If a data scientist who claims he does not know enough about the authentication space can give the thumbs up on the Jax then JSA surely can. After all, there should be room for human error....i.e. guessing or just taking a leap of faith based on a story or provenance.

To be correct, they mistakenly say JSA wrongly identified Anderson. The link shows PSA/DNA to be the authentication culprit making the mistake based on the pictures of the item.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by rand1com

To be correct, they mistakenly say JSA wrongly identified Anderson. The link shows PSA/DNA to be the authentication culprit making the mistake based on the pictures of the item.

Crap I'm an idiot. My apologies to JSA. Will fix the auction listing for posterity and will ADD the apology to all of my posts in this thread dealing with this piece.

It's not even a Spence era PSA piece, don't know what I was looking at.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

If a data scientist who claims he does not know enough about the authentication space can give the thumbs up on the Jax then JSA surely can. After all, there should be room for human error....i.e. guessing or just taking a leap of faith based on a story or provenance.

Since you clearly care most about my opinion in this thread, allow me to correct it for you. As I stated above, by just looking at the autograph and photo, I think Peter's stance of remaining agnostic is the best position to take. Note that a position of agnosticism would prevent it from being authenticated. I only stated that I lean towards it likely being authentic, not that I think it definitely is. But in large part, my inclination to think it is more likely authentic than not has much to do with the fact that both PSA and JSA authenticated it. I trust their opinions more than I do the opinions of a handful of collectors on the internet despite the fact that I fully acknowledge and expect that the experts will offer incorrect opinions a fair percentage of the time.

Regardless, you should continue to ridicule and berate me. It's a good look. People love reading that stuff.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Since you clearly care most about my opinion in this thread, allow me to correct it for you. As I stated above, by just looking at the autograph and photo, I think Peter's stance of remaining agnostic is the best position to take. Note that a position of agnosticism would prevent it from being authenticated. I only stated that I lean towards it likely being authentic, not that I think it definitely is. But in large part, my inclination to think it is more likely authentic than not has much to do with the fact that both PSA and JSA authenticated it. I trust their opinions more than I do the opinions of a handful of collectors on the internet despite the fact that I fully acknowledge and expect that the experts will offer incorrect opinions a fair percentage of the time.

Regardless, you should continue to ridicule and berate me. It's a good look. People love reading that stuff.

When it comes to cards I like my own opinion on authenticity. Since, like you, I know next to nothing about the auto authentication space but know it is affiliated with the same inept and corrupt companies who slab tons of bad cards I do put weight into what a handful of collectors...collectively think...especially when what they think is well thought through and articulated. And in this case there is more than enough info having been provided that would have been enough for me to pass if I were in the market.

Ridiculing and berating? Nah you will know when I am doing that. Just bothered by your contrarian know it all attitude. I will try to do better.