Shoeless Joe Jackson Auto- Fake?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Thank you. This is the only thing I'm asking of people who are engaging in this conversation. All I ask is that people are honest and that they accept basic facts. If we can't have that, then there's no point in discussing. There are many other things we can have a difference of opinion on, and that's fine. But if we start saying things like "that's just your opinion" on whether or not a line goes up or down, then we're all just wasting our time here.

Travis/Snowman, That is what all of you are doing, just wasting your time.

You stated to others that you look to deal in facts, not opinions, right? When it comes to autographs, I don't know if you can qualfy anyone as an "expert", since to begin with it is a proven and known FACT that no matter how hard someone tries, they can never sign their own name exactly the same way twice. So if the person doing the signing can't even duplicate their own signature, how is some third party going to be able to tell the difference between that person's true signature and that of a skilled forger? And I believe that is one of the main reasons so-called "experts" can determine the use of an auto-pen, because all the signatures are exactly the same.

Truth and FACT is, all a so-called autograph "expert" can prove with 100% certainty is that an autograph is fake, like when the item signed wasn't created till after the alleged signer had already passed away, or the ink is analyzed by a chemist and found not to be old enough to have been available when the alleged signer was still alive (ie: T206 cards autographed with Sharpies). Truth and FACT is, unless they actually witnessed a person signing their name on an item, no so-called "expert" can guarantee with 100% certainty that anyone's autograph is legitimately signed by the alleged signer.

So unless some autographed item is definitively proven to be 100% fake, and there was no "expert" on hand that actually saw the item being signed by the alleged signer, the chances of any autograph being legitimate, or fake, is going to be between 1% and 99% (and I'm using round numbers so don't someone be a jerk and say it should be 99.9999...%, or something like that).

Now here is the biggest and most important FACT of all. Since pretty much all autographs will likely fall into this wide range of uncertainty somewhere between 1% and 99% as to whether they are legit or not, it will be up to the collecting public at large to decide whether or not a particular autograph is legit or fake. The so-called autograph "experts" do not, I repeat, DO NOT, decide on behalf of autograph collectors if something is legit. Not having seen an item actually being signed, all any "expert" can do is offer their OPINION on whether or not they think any particular autograph is real or fake. And that "expert(s)" OPINION is then taken into account by the collecting public, along with all other pertinent facts, stories, evidence, provenance, along with the multitude of thoughts and opinions of all the autograph "non-experts" out there, and then the overall collecting public will be the one to decide if they accept a particular autographed item as real, or not. And from all the back and forth arguing going on in this thread, guess what? It really doesn't matter because the collecting public has already decreed they feel it is legit by the simple, incontrovertible fact that at least two collectors saw fit to be willing to pay out over $1M for this signed Joe Jackson picture, whether it was truly his signature or not. We on Net54 make up an extremely small portion of the overall collecting community, especially in light of the recent surge in new collectors/investors, and their apparent obscene amounts of disposable cash to spend on such collectibles. And furthermore, whether we like it or not, this overall collecting community now includes these new people and their money. And another FACT, they, along with rest of us "old time" collectors, effectively vote for and show how we feel about an item's legitimacy and value by the dollars we are willing to pay for it. And let's face it, even with all the crazy money being thrown around in the hobby today, any time you see a single item go for over $1M, that is still extremely rare and speaks to the acceptance and deemed authenticity of an item in the eyes of the collecting community today.

So you guys can go back and forth about if it is real or not, the collecting public, not the "experts", have already decided it is real. Or if nothing else, due to all the story and drama surrounding the alleged Jackson autograph on this photo, it is considered as the most valuable baseball related autograph I've ever heard of.

Continuing to argue about this is like the other thread arguing about who is the greatest pre-war ballplayer, which got into a pissing match between Cobb and Ruth proponets. Truth is, there is no correct answer as pre-war baseball is split into two very distinct eras with Cobb playing more in the deadball era and Ruth in the live ball era. They are both great in their own ways and styles of play. I learned Ruth supporters can be very opinionated and unwilling to have any openess to facts, and merely say they are right, and have no open mindedness at all. They are also good at accusing people of saying things they didn't say or mean, because that is what they think. And the same stubborness and unwavering opinions are being shown on this thread as well. And for the record, Ruth is not a five tool player, which many people look at in determing if a player is great or not. Doesn't mean he's better or worse than Cobb, who should be considered a five tool player, just that is one thing Ruth wasn't, but Cobb was.

And Travis/Snowman, I'm not directing this at, or specifically picking on you. You were just the last person to post when I started this response. LOL Guys, let this thread go. There is no right or wrong answer. And the price paid for the picture says it is considered worth a helluva lot, regardless!!!

[SteveS]

So here's a question I have for everybody. If you paid $1.4 million for this photograph, would you want to then pay for an ink analysis to find out for sure whether the writing was done in 1911 and the signature and place/date are in the same ink? Or would you rather not do that, to avoid the chance of finding out that you just spent a lot of money on something written in 2011?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by SteveS

So here's a question I have for everybody. If you paid $1.4 million for this photograph, would you want to then pay for an ink analysis to find out for sure whether the writing was done in 1911 and the signature and place/date are in the same ink? Or would you rather not do that, to avoid the chance of finding out that you just spent a lot of money on something written in 2011?

It come with a LOA/COA or whatever they call it. So I would treat it like most treat PSA graded cards. It is exactly what the flip/LOA/COA says no matter what it really is.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by SteveS

So here's a question I have for everybody. If you paid $1.4 million for this photograph, would you want to then pay for an ink analysis to find out for sure whether the writing was done in 1911 and the signature and place/date are in the same ink? Or would you rather not do that, to avoid the chance of finding out that you just spent a lot of money on something written in 2011?

If it was non-destructive, then yes.

I'd also want written assurances that the AH would make good on the item if it failed. That sort of stuff is usually arranged ahead of time.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by SteveS

So here's a question I have for everybody. If you paid $1.4 million for this photograph, would you want to then pay for an ink analysis to find out for sure whether the writing was done in 1911 and the signature and place/date are in the same ink? Or would you rather not do that, to avoid the chance of finding out that you just spent a lot of money on something written in 2011?

I’d normally expect such a thing was already baked into the authentication process…but of course it was not.

Still wouldn’t establish Joe vs Katie vs someone else back then, but obviously would at least rule out a modern forgery.

Have read different descriptions as to whether auto is in pencil or pen. Can anyone clarify?

[SteveS]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

I’d normally expect such a thing was already baked into the authentication process…but of course it was not.

Still wouldn’t establish Joe vs Katie vs someone else back then, but obviously would at least rule out a modern forgery.

Have read different descriptions as to whether auto is in pencil or pen. Can anyone clarify?

I posted screenshots above. Heritage said pencil, Christie's said fountain pen ink. Which seems pretty odd to me. As for an analysis, while I am straddling the fence right now, if it were shown that the ink has been on the paper since 1911, I'd be more inclined to go with legit. The signature is not in the style of Katie's, and who knows what exemplar existed in 1911 for the photographer to copy.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by BobC

And let's face it, even with all the crazy money being thrown around in the hobby today, any time you see a single item go for over $1M, that is still extremely rare and speaks to the acceptance and deemed authenticity of an item in the eyes of the collecting community today.

Great summary. The only quibble I would have is with the above, and it's similar to the argument around establishing card values from individual sales. This only establishes the acceptance of the item among the number of parties bidding on the item (at most), and the last 2 bidders (at least). Both/all could totally disagree with the 'eyes of the collecting community' as a whole. But I totally agree with the gist of what you are saying. There are at least 2 parties that strongly believe this to be authentic (for whatever reasons), otherwise the price wouldn't have been what it was.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by tschock

Great summary. The only quibble I would have is with the above, and it's similar to the argument around establishing card values from individual sales. This only establishes the acceptance of the item among the number of parties bidding on the item (at most), and the last 2 bidders (at least). Both/all could totally disagree with the 'eyes of the collecting community' as a whole. But I totally agree with the gist of what you are saying. There are at least 2 parties that strongly believe this to be authentic (for whatever reasons), otherwise the price wouldn't have been what it was.

I entirely understand your concern/issue, and don't disagree at all. What's the old saying though, "Money talks, and BS walks!". You can still have a lot of people who do not believe it is real, but even so, they now know that at least a few people in the hobby do feel it is real and will pay big bucks for it. So real or not, everyone knows this unique item is worth some serious money, and to me, that shows the acceptance by the hobby community that is a real collectible item. This item has a back story and provenance all its own, and that is a big reason why it is being accepted by at least some portion of the hobby. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but I think you have to accept it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

I entirely understand your concern/issue, and don't disagree at all. What's the old saying though, "Money talks, and BS walks!". You can still have a lot of people who do not believe it is real, but even so, they now know that at least a few people in the hobby do feel it is real and will pay big bucks for it. So real or not, everyone knows this unique item is worth some serious money, and to me, that shows the acceptance by the hobby community that is a real collectible item. This item has a back story and provenance all its own, and that is a big reason why it is being accepted by at least some portion of the hobby. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but I think you have to accept it.

Suppose the winner and higher bidders were unaware of the controversy, or chose to believe PSA and JSA. How does that show acceptance by the community as a whole? Your reasoning sounds circular, it sold for a lot of money, therefore it's accepted.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Suppose the winner and higher bidders were unaware of the controversy, or chose to believe PSA and JSA. How does that show acceptance by the community as a whole? Your reasoning sounds circular, it sold for a lot of money, therefore it's accepted.

I doubt the winner or serious under bidder(s) did extensive research (or what some would call groupthink, sheep-like analysis) but I could be wrong. As has been written here over and over, the label is everything. There will always be a buyer for this Jax photo given the authentication associated with it. No longer matters what it is only what it says it is.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

I doubt the winner or serious under bidder(s) did extensive research (or what some would call groupthink, sheep-like analysis) but I could be wrong. As has been written here over and over, the label is everything. There will always be a buyer for this Jax photo given the authentication associated with it. No longer matters what it is only what it says it is.

Right, we don't know if the buyer was a sophisticated collector who did his own research and assessment, or someone who just relied on the authentications and thought it would be a cool thing to own and/or a good investment.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Suppose the winner and higher bidders were unaware of the controversy, or chose to believe PSA and JSA. How does that show acceptance by the community as a whole? Your reasoning sounds circular, it sold for a lot of money, therefore it's accepted.

Well......yeah!

Peter, take a look at what Jason.1969 said in his post, and my response to that. I'm not saying I agree and accept that the Jackson autograph is legit, but because others do, I have to accept that that signed photo is worth serious money.

Put it this way. Now that you know that at least two people feel this item is worth over $1M, what if hypothetically speaking, you lucked out and somehow you could acquire this photo for $500K right now, knowing there are at least two people out there that would give over $1M for it tomorrow then. Are you telling me that even though you may not believe that autograph is real, that you still wouldn't pull the trigger and acquire it for $500K today so you could resell it and double your money tomorrow? You know you would. I would. Heck, anyone with half a brain would. And that is what I mean by it now being accepted in the hobby as having a significant value, regardless of whether or not you believe Joe Jackson actually signed the photo.

And the whole community doesn't have to agree to make it acceptable. Just think of the vast number of "normal" people out there in society who view us baseball card collecting nerds as complete idiots because we spend so much time and money acquiring little pieces of cardboard that mean virtually nothing to them. But then what happens to one of these "normal" people if say an elderly relative passes away, and while going through their belongings they come across some Old Judge cards, including a Delahanty HOFer card. Even though they couldn't care less about these cards and have no use or desire to keep them, they are aware that card collectors pay good money for old cards sometimes, and accept that these cards are collectible and definitely worth something. So when they see a sign for a card show at a local Holiday Inn, they grab the OJs they found and head up there with their spouse, where they eventually run into me through an acquaintance because no one else at the show knew a damn thing about OJs, including the local rep handling the REA table.

Anyway, helped them to realize what they had, and got the REA rep to call and get them a huge reduction on the seller's commission before they consigned the OJs to them. Bottom line was, they had no use or desire for the cards themselves, but accepted that these OJ cards were valuable because others would pay good money for them, and didn't just throw them out. People in the hobby who don't believe the Jackson auto is legit are going to be like the couple that found the OJ cards. They may not feel the item is worth anything to them personally, but because they know it is valued by others, they'll accept that and treat it like the valuable collectible that it actually is.

Now if that is a circular argument, then I guess so be it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Well......yeah!

Peter, take a look at what Jason.1969 said in his post, and my response to that. I'm not saying I agree and accept that the Jackson autograph is legit, but because others do, I have to accept that that signed photo is worth serious money.

Put it this way. Now that you know that at least two people feel this item is worth over $1M, what if hypothetically speaking, you lucked out and somehow you could acquire this photo for $500K right now, knowing there are at least two people out there that would give over $1M for it tomorrow then. Are you telling me that even though you may not believe that autograph is real, that you still wouldn't pull the trigger and acquire it for $500K today so you could resell it and double your money tomorrow? You know you would. I would. Heck, anyone with half a brain would. And that is what I mean by it now being accepted in the hobby as having a significant value, regardless of whether or not you believe Joe Jackson actually signed the photo.

And the whole community doesn't have to agree to make it acceptable. Just think of the vast number of "normal" people out there in society who view us baseball card collecting nerds as complete idiots because we spend so much time and money acquiring little pieces of cardboard that mean virtually nothing to them. But then what happens to one of these "normal" people if say an elderly relative passes away, and while going through their belongings they come across some Old Judge cards, including a Delahanty HOFer card. Even though they couldn't care less about these cards and have no use or desire to keep them, they are aware that card collectors pay good money for old cards sometimes, and accept that these cards are collectible and definitely worth something. So when they see a sign for a card show at a local Holiday Inn, they grab the OJs they found and head up there with their spouse, where they eventually run into me through an acquaintance because no one else at the show knew a damn thing about OJs, including the local rep handling the REA table.

Anyway, helped them to realize what they had, and got the REA rep to call and get them a huge reduction on the seller's commission before they consigned the OJs to them. Bottom line was, they had no use or desire for the cards themselves, but accepted that these OJ cards were valuable because others would pay good money for them, and didn't just throw them out. People in the hobby who don't believe the Jackson auto is legit are going be like the couple that found the OJ cards. The may not feel the item is worth anything to them personally, but because they know it is valued by others, they'll accept that and treat it like the valuable collectible that it actually is.

Now if that is a circular argument, then I guess so be it.

Bob I get the point but it feels circular to me. It sold for a lot of money therefore it's worth a lot of money. The same thing happens when prices are driven up fraudulently, it increases the price of the next one because it alters perception of value. So what? Suppose tomorrow there was a well-publicized revelation that the ink was from 1980, or someone admitted to forging it. It wouldn't be worth shit. It's not like the Wagner which has value independent of whether it's trimmed or not because of its unique notoriety.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bob I get the point but it feels circular to me. It sold for a lot of money therefore it's worth a lot of money. The same thing happens when prices are driven up fraudulently, it increases the price of the next one because it alters perception of value. So what? Suppose tomorrow there was a well-publicized revelation that the ink was from 1980, or someone admitted to forging it. It wouldn't be worth shit. It's not like the Wagner which has value independent of whether it's trimmed or not because of its unique notoriety.

Peter,

Agree with you, but in this case it is a unique item so I don't think we have to worry about the shill bidding angle to manipulate the price. We're not going to see 5 more signed copies of the exact same picture suddenly turning up in various auctions over the next few months. (At least I pray we don't.)

You're also correct about the hit to it's value if it suddenly turned out it could be proven the signature was not legit after all. But this item already underwent a lot of scrutiny and exposure when it ended up on the Strange Inheritance cable show and then was initially sold at auction back in 2015. I have to believe that if anyone from either side of the argument had found any factual new evidence since that initial sale that could definitively prove their point, one way or another, that the signature was fake or real, that they would have jumped at the opportunity to come forward and show the other side up. In this particular instance we have multiple "experts" on either side of the argument. And if there's one thing an "expert" enjoys, it is to be proven right over someone else so people will continue to look at and come to them, as the "expert".

So I don't think there is suddenly going to be any new evidence coming forward, and therefore, this recent sale at $1.4M is going to be viewed and considered as a legit sale and value by the hobby community. Now does it mean the item is actually worth the price paid for it....who knows. We'll just have to wait and see if at some point in the near future the new owner puts it back up for sale by auction, and see how much it goes for then versus what was just paid for it. But for now, circular argument or not, I think the hobby is going to have to accept that there is a new item that just got added to the short list of baseball collectibles worth over $1M. You don't have to believe the autograph is legitimate, but just know that the item is worth a lot!

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by BobC

I entirely understand your concern/issue, and don't disagree at all. What's the old saying though, "Money talks, and BS walks!". You can still have a lot of people who do not believe it is real, but even so, they now know that at least a few people in the hobby do feel it is real and will pay big bucks for it. So real or not, everyone knows this unique item is worth some serious money, and to me, that shows the acceptance by the hobby community that is a real collectible item. This item has a back story and provenance all its own, and that is a big reason why it is being accepted by at least some portion of the hobby. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but I think you have to accept it.

The modern version of the Hobby is that slabs and slips mean more to collector-investors than what’s inside the slab.

Similarly, the provenance associated with authenticity is now secondary to the “provenance” of a high publicity sale. There is a critical mass of wealthy collector-investors who will care much less about whether this item was actually signed by Joe Jackson and more about the fact that this is THE photo that sold for $1.4 million.

Some of you maybe saw that a doodle of an elephant from Gary V got slabbed by PSA and sold for $400,000. Laugh all you like, but this is today’s Hobby. We may make fun of the collectors paying six figures when the names aren’t Ruth, Cobb, or Shoeless Joe, but I suspect the “empathetic elephant NFT” and Jasson Dominguez 1/1 buyers have much more in common with many of us than we’d like to believe.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

The modern version of the Hobby is that slabs and slips mean more to collector-investors than what’s inside the slab.

Similarly, the provenance associated with authenticity is now secondary to the “provenance” of a high publicity sale. There is a critical mass of wealthy collector-investors who will care much less about whether this item was actually signed by Joe Jackson and more about the fact that this is THE photo that sold for $1.4 million.

Some of you maybe saw that a doodle of an elephant from Gary V got slabbed by PSA and sold for $400,000. Laugh all you like, but this is today’s Hobby. We may make fun of the collectors paying six figures when the names aren’t Ruth, Cobb, or Shoeless Joe, but I suspect the “empathetic elephant NFT” and Jasson Dominguez 1/1 buyers have much more in common with many of us than we’d like to believe.

+1

You and I are on the same page. We may not like what others are accepting, but we have to live with it whether we like it or not.

I think Bitcoin is tantamount to a Ponzi scheme, and NFTs are a joke. But guess what, even though I don't care for either of them, I have to accept that others do and accept that they are considered part of our world now.