19th century player- Real or No?

[tha-rock]

Saw this in a recent auction. It is described as being a cut autograph of Charlie Buffinton (d. 1907). Buffinton was a star in the early baseball days- his 11-year career was from 1882-1892. He is one of those guys that could have been in the HOF. His best year was 1884 when as part of a 2-man pitching rotation, he won 48 games, but as fate would have it, that was the same year that Hoss Radbourne won 60 games. Imagine winning 48 games and NOT leading the league in that category. He also pitched 587 innings and struck out 417 batters in 1884- Iron Man numbers for any era. Lifetime he won 233, with a 2.96 ERA and 1700 strikeouts. He died suddenly in 1907 at the age of 46.

So it's a rare autograph, and I'm interested in bidding on it until I notice one thing that really concerns me- his last name is misspelled. The cut signature reads "Buffington", when actually the player's name is "Buffinton" with no 'g' in the last name. That is either a major tell that this is bogus, or there is more to this story if that signature is genuine. The item has a JSA LOAA, which is bothersome. If this is Charles Buffinton's signature, why would he misspell his last name? I read the SABR bio in Baseball Reference and Buffinton wasn't illiterate. After his playing days he went into the family business in a front office position. His parents, his brother, and his 3 children all spelled their last name "Buffinton" if you believe the spellings on their grave markers and in ancestry. Does anyone know any reason why Buffinton would deliberately misspell his name when writing his name? Or did he always add a 'g' to his name when writing it? Could it be that someone else may have written his name and misspelled it? Am I missing something? Seeing this misspelling gives me no confidence in the JSA LOAA, and makes me wonder if they would certify it if the winner sent it in after the auction for a full LOA.

Do any of the 19th Century or Deadball era experts out there have any light they can shed on this?

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

I saw it and obviously passed as well. It reminded me of a handful of similarly questionable pieces which we discussed on here several months ago. Just do a detailed search on the forum for Cy Seymour. I believe that will generate the info to which I refer.

[Michael B]

I would say FAKE, FAKE, FAKE!!!!

I suggest you not fall into that bottomless chasm that a lot of collectors, especially in sports, fall into -trying to justify why an item is genuine despite facts to the obvious. The first question should be - Why can't this item be genuine? You already know the answer to that question. Of course he would not misspell his own name. To listen to any argument to the contrary would be foolish. The little dudes in your head should not be creating scenarios where there is that possibility. Instead they should be giving you a dope slap and saying "Run, Forrest, Run" the other way. Why on God's green earth would you buy it to send it to JSA for their LOPO (letter of pathetic opinion) when you know it is fake? By questioning it we know you are smart.

Besides the obvious misspelling, the ink color bothers me. While not a hard and fast rule by any means, any signed or written item I have from the late 19th early 20th century is in black or brown ink. I do not run into a lot of blue until the early 1930's.

Signed in 1894

Mérignac,-Lucien-(1894)---2.jpg

Signed in 1932

Bausch,-Jim-(1932)---5.jpg

[Scott Garner]

Another obvious tell is that the handwriting style completely gives it away.
This autograph displays a more modern "style" of writing that would never have been used by a player in the 1880's.

Bogus!

[frankbmd]

Only one of the two "i"s has a dot.

[tha-rock]

Thanks, guys. I didn't comment on the ink color or writing but also thought it didn't look period. If this was authentic, it would have been a minimum of 115 years old, signed with a steel tipped fountain pen, and this looks like it might have been signed with something else but it's really hard to tell with the image. I also think that a signature that was signed 115 years ago would likely be in black ink. I'm not an expert, but nothing about this signature strongly suggests that it is authentic to me, but that's my opinion.

It concerns me that JSA would issue a LOAA for this and I have to wonder what degree of examination they gave to it. I have a few items in my collection with LOAAs and I'm comfortable with them, but it makes me wonder.

[earlywynnfan]

I pretty much thought that LOAA meant "we the auction house think it will pass, but JSA hasn't looked at it yet and won't until the winner ponies up some cash."

As a near-Pulitzer level magazine once proclaimed itself, an auction LOA is "suitable for wrapping fish."

[tha-rock]

The listing says it has a JSA LOAA, so I presume that JSA gave it a "cursory" review as stated in this JSA LOAA from a recent purchase. Here is the language on the reverse of the JSA LOAA.

I still wonder what kind of cursory review did JSA give this item? But I get your point- neither a LOAA nor a full LOA can turn a bad item into a good item.