PAWN STARS Shoeless Joe Jackson signed book...

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Not really, Scott. We lawyer types call that "chain hearsay" and it has no value in court because it is not eyewitness evidence of anything.

Right, and it still wouldn't get me to buy that autograph. I only collect handwritten letters, and, of course, no one saw such letters written either. It comes down to what you are comfortable with, and while the Jackson book auto might be fine, I wouldn't be comfortable with it - no more than a single-signed Babe Ruth ball.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Right, and it still wouldn't get me to buy that autograph. I only collect handwritten letters, and, of course, no one saw such letters written either. It comes down to what you are comfortable with, and while the Jackson book auto might be fine, I wouldn't be comfortable with it - no more than a single-signed Babe Ruth ball.

Some hobby friends and I call that the "leap of faith." Obviously the shorter the leap the better. If I were collecting autographs I think the only way I could be comfortable is getting them in person, on legal documents or checks (most times). That's just me though and all you autograph guys probably have your own comfort levels. It's all good as long as you are happy and don't stress too much .

ps...I should have said, I am in agreement with you Scott.

[alexautographs]

Following up on "leap of faith" items:

Years ago I sold a watch purportedly given by Marilyn Monroe to JFK on the night of his birthday gala at MSG. Provenance was so-so at best, but the watch dated correctly, engraving was correct, it was encased in a $6,000 gold antique case in a fitted Rolex box, came from an excellent source in the UK, with some limited paperwork. But Rolex was uncooperative with sales records and serial numbers, despite my machinations.

All we had in the way of written provenance was a typed statement with an indecipherable signature and a statement by the sister of one of JFK's top aides, who was not a party to the transaction. Did my due diligence on the physical evidence - there were no autographs involved - and sold the piece with a three-page description advising EXACTLY what we had found, and nothing more.

That's how dealers deal with relics, since that's all you really have to go with, and buyers bid having the same info we do. That's faith...and a gamble. Of course, unlike the infamous Elvis hair, if we had found out it was (allegedly) bogus, it would have been out the door in a flash (instead of having been repeatedly repackaged with the same (allegedly) bogus attribution). Have to be careful in this litigious world...

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

Some hobby friends and I call that the "leap of faith." Obviously the shorter the leap the better. If I were collecting autographs I think the only way I could be comfortable is getting them in person, on legal documents or checks (most times). That's just me though and all you autograph guys probably have your own comfort levels. It's all good as long as you are happy and don't stress too much .

ps...I should have said, I am in agreement with you Scott.

I guess I would buy the checks and legal documents, but I prefer the handwritten letters with baseball content.

I did buy a 'leap of faith' autograph last month. It was a letter signed by Arthur Hardy, a black ballplayer back in the first decade of the 1900's who played on a team I am researching. His interviews regarding travel, playing conditions, etc., are priceless and a joy to read. So I broke my own rules and bought an autograph that is impossible to authenticate, only because it was a handwritten letter and I just had to take that leap. I was stressing a little before it arrived.

I was surprised when I received it - the back of the letter is the actual request for information about other black players who Hardy had played with. Good enough provenance for me, but still a minor leap of faith and nothing I would normally purchase.

The other provenance stress I underwent was a glove that Barry Halper owned. It had a typewritten notecard with Bob Feller's signature, but Halper's name still kind of gives me the willies.

[travrosty]

why would someone want to put the jackson autograph through the spectral machine now if they know its real, unless they have doubts now? the spectral machine is a glorified black light.

if you want to put anything through the spectral magnatomater spelunkometer machine, put the harry truman ball that sold at eac through the machine. the machine would probably explode. herman, could you ask john to find that ball and put it through the machine? why is there no comment from john anywhere when his name is on the provenance that eac listed when it sold the ball?

[alexautographs]

Actually, Travis, that machine would be ideal for the examination of that "foul" Truman ball. It would show right away any adulteration or addition to the writing.

I've known John for many years and would be surprised to learn he'd be involved in anything so despicable. I would expect he'd have some thing to say about it.

[travrosty]

i just wish he would say something, instead, its silence and i dont know why.

eac gallery's position is that it was 7 years ago, so just let it go.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by alexautographs

Actually, Travis, that machine would be ideal for the examination of that "foul" Truman ball. It would show right away any adulteration or addition to the writing.

I've known John for many years and would be surprised to learn he'd be involved in anything so despicable. I would expect he'd have some thing to say about it.

yes, it would be ideal to look at the foul truman ball, but the ball is so foul the machine will implode. since the ball had "provenance john reznikoff" listed with it when it was put up for auction by eac gallery, i would think eac vetted the provenance at the time, or at least looked at it.

[gnaz01]

Wonder why they took the Pawn Stars video down, can't find it anywhere.