|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Rhys, doesn't the sizes and big white borders seem unusual for the 1911 time period? I can't speak on the autographs, but based on what I see on the Heritage site, and the sizes that all seem to be either standard studio 8x10 or 5x8 + the big white borders, they seem to fit into the early 1920's time period or so. Doesn't mean he didn't take these pictures in 1911 and then have them developed at a later date, and then maybe track these guys down one by one..........though that then negates the Mathewson. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Or, explains why the Matty may not be good, when many of the commons appear to be.
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
This is a thought that forgers have been relying on for years.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+ Last edited by Runscott; 02-11-2015 at 10:56 AM. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ordinarily I'd agree but in this case all of the photos are said to come from the same source.
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
It's a bit of a conundrum.
When it comes to things like this, I never automatically take these stories as true, regardless of how sweet the little old lady is, etc. If only the Jackson, or only the Jackson and Matty are bad, there are many possible scenarios as to how that occurred. A common misconception is that because forgeries are abhorrent to us, that they are the product of inferior minds. Forgers are not always dummies - often they are both more creative and more intelligent than you.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+ Last edited by Runscott; 02-11-2015 at 11:28 AM. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
if the same type of pen is used, with the same consistent amount of aging/fading from the common stars up to the matty...and if the commons are good, then i'd think the lajoie/jax/matty are also good. who back then would even have a joe jackson examplar to forge from? if they're bad then they're all bad...if they're good then they're all good.
now if it can be proven the photos are period but the ink came much later then the possibility of funny business is greater. like i said with a hoard this big psa probably had all these questions in mind while doing the authentication, you would think. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Always looking for: 1913 Cravats pennants St. Paul Saints Game Used Bats and Memorabilia http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=180664 |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Yes, if the prints are from 1911 and the ink is from 1911, then they are probably good. Do you know anyone who tests ink on autographs prior to selling them? If you were a forger, you wouldn't try to duplicate the aging/fading of the ink to match some of the commons that you were slipping your high-$ items in with? Also, take a few minutes and look at all of the commons - the aging/fading/whatever you want to call it, differs among them. My guess would be that most, if not all, are authentic. But the Matty and Jackson? …they match each other pretty well and are crystal-clear. And we have seen plenty of forgeries where the 'experts' thought the ink 'looked' vintage.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+ |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: SUPER RARE Lou Jackson Autograph w/COA SOLD | quinnsryche | Autographs & Game Used B/S/T | 4 | 02-01-2015 08:21 AM |
Shoeless Joe Jackson autograph request letter | GrayGhost | Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T | 0 | 07-21-2014 06:45 AM |
1915 White Sox Photograph Including Shoeless Joe Jackson?? Rare? Info? | blackmamba | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 2 | 01-30-2011 09:14 AM |
Shoeless Joe Jackson E90-1 on E Bay | Archive | Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T | 0 | 11-28-2007 09:09 AM |
Shoeless Joe Jackson | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 68 | 03-31-2007 06:00 PM |