Rare Shoeless Joe Jackson autograph

[milkit1]

Here is his signed draft card. I say real. The whole "he couldnt sign" nonsense has been blown completely out of proportion. He very obviously could sign. My guess was he was embarrassed by how poorly he wrote and mostly just avoided doing it.
joe-jackson-ww1-draft-card-front.jpg

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by milkit1

My guess was he was embarrassed by how poorly he wrote and mostly just avoided doing it.

You are really going out on a limb there.

[milkit1]

Originally Posted by Runscott

You are really going out on a limb there.

Yes as opposed to saying he never signed anything when he obviously did. Lol

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by milkit1

Yes as opposed to saying he never signed anything when he obviously did. Lol

Did someone really say that he 'never' signed

Sorry, I missed that - if you were kicking a moron, I apologize for having a slight laugh at your expense Please carry on.

[shelly]

Originally Posted by Runscott

You are really going out on a limb there.

I think it is time for you guys to see the new hauls of shame site. It is about Joe and I know you do not like Nash but this is really interesting.
http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=19597#more-19597

[canjond]

Originally Posted by shelly

I think it is time for you guys to see the new hauls of shame site. It is about Joe and I know you do not like Nash but this is really interesting.
http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=19597#more-19597

Well the purported Jackson signed photo I recalled seeing is the one referenced as having sold in a Sotherby's auction in 1999.

[milkit1]

The two teams from different states and leagues thing is pretty weird unless there were other teams signed as well? I just did a comparison on the Ted Easterly and think it is authentic. Of course a good forger could do what I just did too but I think its good.

easterly clos eup.jpg

easterly draft edit.jpg

[sb1]

Originally Posted by milkit1

Here is his signed draft card. I say real. The whole "he couldnt sign" nonsense has been blown completely out of proportion. He very obviously could sign. My guess was he was embarrassed by how poorly he wrote and mostly just avoided doing it.
Attachment 178455

Um.........he signed the card at the bottom, he did not fill out the info. Two entirely different hands at work. His actual signature at the bottom of the draft card looks nothing like the photo . AND I know next to nothing about autographs.


Edited to say photo instead of ball.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by sb1

Um.........he signed the card at the bottom, he did not fill out the info. Two entirely different hands at work. His actual signature at the bottom of the draft card looks nothing like the ball. AND I know next to nothing about autographs.

Scott, I think I confused the issue by posting pics of the ball.

Here are all the legal documents I could gather, that show his signature - the close-up is from his will. I don't think the one on his contract (with Comiskey), or the 1949 license are authentic, but I'm no Jackson autograph expert. All pics are from Blackbetsy.com:

[rats60]

Originally Posted by milkit1

Here is his signed draft card. I say real. The whole "he couldnt sign" nonsense has been blown completely out of proportion. He very obviously could sign. My guess was he was embarrassed by how poorly he wrote and mostly just avoided doing it.
Attachment 178455

Then his autograph must have really deteriorated in the five years between when he signed that photo and that draft card.

[Bugsy]

Is the photo itself a legit Type 1? It would really take some stones to try faking an autograph on a several thousand dollar piece when the fake signature could have been added to something of lesser value. I don't have a take on the authenticity of the signature, but could you imagine someone trying to fake a Jackson signature on a real 1915 Joe Jackson Cracker Jack?

[milkit1]

Originally Posted by sb1

Um.........he signed the card at the bottom, he did not fill out the info. Two entirely different hands at work. His actual signature at the bottom of the draft card looks nothing like the ball. AND I know next to nothing about autographs.

I'm not referring to the ball just the photo.

Originally Posted by rats60

Then his autograph must have really deteriorated in the five years between when he signed that photo and that draft card.

Deteriorated and sloppy are two different things. Squeezing his name on to the bottom of a draft card and having free reign on a 5x7 photo could certainly cause a sloppier autograph for an already sloppy autographer. That's the other thing I never understood is people assuming that one autograph has no variations? I signed my name twice a day on my timesheet and cant tell you how many times each one looks significantly different. These (the photo and the draft card) are far from significantly different.

[milkit1]

Theonly thing I find suspicious is having two different teams from two different leagues signed on these photos.. I assume the photographer would have had to get the photos developed and then come back and have them signed so even the two teams playing an exhibition game seems unlikely?

[Runscott]

Sean, I was wondering the same thing. First thought was that a lot of these players never made the team (Giants or Indians), so he would had to have gotten the prints made quickly, just to find the players again to sign. Maybe he took them at the beginning of spring training (March), was covering just these two teams, and got them developed over a few days. He would have kept a negative logbook of some sort, so if they were still around after the prints were developed, it shouldn't have been a problem.

Whoever was asking about print dating - read the earlier posts.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by milkit1

Theonly thing I find suspicious is having two different teams from two different leagues signed on these photos.. I assume the photographer would have had to get the photos developed and then come back and have them signed so even the two teams playing an exhibition game seems unlikely?

New York had teams in both leagues - it would be easy to take pics of the Giants at the Polo Grounds, then get some shots of the team visiting the Highlanders...

But then where would the connection to the Cleveland barn come from?

What strikes me as odd are the following two quotes that don't seem to fit together:

"The family offered to sell the scrapbook five years ago to Bowen's husband because they knew how much he treasured the 60 photos. The price tag: $15,000."

"A collector all his life, he appreciated its history and connection to his hometown. Not knowing the book's sky-high value, they never locked it up or worried about keeping it out of sight. "It wasn't an investment," she said."

So, I ask myself, who pays $15,000 for 60 pictures without doing a little research? For that matter, who SELLS 60 pictures for $15k without doing research? And how is that expenditure not an investment? Also, how does a guy who's been "a collector all his life" not know Joe Jackson signatures are quite rare and valuable?

It just sounds odd. I'm not an autograph guy, but should the two "J"s be so different, with the second being so wide? and the "s" on his last name looks more well-formed than images I've seen of his signature. But I don't know anything about that, it's the story I don't quite buy.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Mark17

New York had teams in both leagues - it would be easy to take pics of the Giants at the Polo Grounds, then get some shots of the team visiting the Highlanders...

But then where would the connection to the Cleveland barn come from?

It was Spring Training - March. The teams might have been right next to each other. I'm sure someone around here can find out where the two teams had spring training in 1911.

The 'discovery' part of the story sounds like hogwash.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Runscott

It was Spring Training - March. The teams might have been right next to each other. I'm sure someone around here can find out where the two teams had spring training in 1911.

The 'discovery' part of the story sounds like hogwash.

Doesn't the inscription say: Alexandria, May 1911?

In any case, the photos could've been taken in spring training, or in some town (Like Alexandria, VA) as the teams were working their way north to start the season, later developed, and then the sigs could've been obtained as I mentioned - sometime when Cleveland and the Giants were both in NY, hence the May inscription.

I'm sure the Giants spring training facility is mentioned in The Glory of Their Times, maybe with regards to the stories about Charles "Victory" Faust joining the team down there.

[vintagesportscollector]

I know nothing of autographs, so no intent to throw fuel on the fire, but I will say that I have the worst handwriting of anyone I know, and I am admittedly embarrassed and uncomfortable with my signature. It has changed significantly over the years and today varies notably fom signing to signing. I recall purchasing one of my homes and filling out all the mortgage and legal documents, and the lawyer asked me to do it all again because my signatures varied so much. To me the photo and draft card are not that significantly different, or at least reasonable that the same person could have done them.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by milkit1

Squeezing his name on to the bottom of a draft card and having free reign on a 5x7 photo could certainly cause a sloppier autograph for an already sloppy autographer.

I don't know a lot about autographs, but I definitely agree with this statement. I write large, typically have a large signature. Whenever I sign my name on a check, it looks a lot different than when I sign my name to another type of document. The reason is, is that the "J" in my last name tends to have a large bottom loop. Well, since there isn't much room at the bottom of a check, I have to modify the "J" to make it fit the check (otherwise it runs off the bottom).

[vintagesportscollector]

49 license clearly not his signature....(edit) oh you pointed that out already Scott.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagesportscollector

49 license clearly not his signature....(edit) oh you pointed that out already Scott.

That's his wife's signature, which is funny since it says 'Usual Signature'. She usually signed for him, so I guess it made sense.

Wow - I'm learning.

[David Atkatz]

The '49 license was obviously proxy-signed by Kate. I don't know who signed the contract--except that it wasn't Jackson.

[canjond]

Years ago, didn't one of the big auction houes sell a Joe Jackson signed photograph? From what I remember, the signature had been traced over because of Jackson poor handwriting, and subsequently a conservator removed the "traced over" portion leaving the original signature intact?

[sb1]

I meant photo. my mistake, the documents you provide are the same as the draft card.

[Runscott]

If the Heritage photo is real, it's the only signed Joe Jackson photo in existence.

I think there are enough authentic Jackson signatures to compare it to, even if you toss out all the baseballs.