Joe Jackson on Ebay??

[Jerry Ficchi]

I’ve been thinking about this Jackson glove in comparison to the other white D&M’s and one thing bothers me about the inconsistent attitudes. We have discussed the four and their similarities, attendant mysteries, etc. Why is the Jackson the only one of the four which has had its legitimacy questioned?

Despite its lack of public exposure, the George Kelly mitt was known within the hobby and has been owned by at least two of the most advanced collectors, one of them being the present owner/seller of the Jackson. Never did I hear even a whisper that it might be anything less than 100% legitimate; never in my dealings or discussions with other collectors or in The Glove Collector newsletter.

The Grover C. Alexander glove had more public exposure because it was displayed on a website. Though always sold privately, it has resided in the hands of at least three knowledgeable collectors. Even though its genesis and early history are unknown, again, I have never heard of any collector questioning its legitimacy.

The Dazzy Vance glove was unheard of and uncataloged until it showed up on eBay. This time it was presented by an outsider to the hobby. Its legitimacy was never questioned or challenged. The sale was reported in The Glove Collector newsletter, but never a discussion of legitimacy.

Now the Joe Jackson shows up, owned by one of the most experienced collectors in the hobby. This one gets questioned. Why? The weak signature argument just doesn’t cut it. The Alexander and Vance are cleaner gloves with stronger signatures. Both would have been much easier to fake than a weaker signature (the perfect example is the infamous, fake Spalding Ruth sold on eBay years ago). By comparison, it is ludicrous to question this one after giving the others complete passes. Why weren’t all the gloves treated with suspicion? Especially the Vance, which no collector outside of the eBay winner ever handled?

My point is: there is reporting (which is what occurred with the Vance glove), editorial (which is what happened with the Jackson being lumped in with an article on fake gloves), and investigative research (which is what “advancedâ€

[vintagebrett]

I think the reason that this glove is being discussed is because it currently is up on eBay. As you pointed out there are quite a few of us "neophytes" here on this board and we aren't as familiar with the other 3 similiar gloves. I think if you carefully reread all of the posts again you will find that no one is accusing Glenn of misrepresenting the item or trying to pass a fake along - people were just trying to learn more about the item by asking some quetions and bringing it up for converstation. As Joe has mentioned, with any item carrying this price tag, it is important to do your homework and have as much information as possible. I know there is no way I could afford an item like this but if I could, I would like to hear other collectors input into what they thought about an item before I laid down the money.

Obviously, and I'm sure Joe would be the first to admit it, there are a lot of old time collectors out there with tons of knowledge. I think it's great to share that knowledge with us "neophytes" who might not know as much. Jerry, it's great that you have a great deal of information about these gloves and can share it with us. However, being condescending, in my opinion, is the not the best way to help out. You imply that "advanced" collectors do investigative research before buying an item. I'm pretty sure that was the intent of the original postings - learn more about the item from fellow collectors. I went back through all of the posts and not once did someone say the glove was a fake - posters were just trying to see what other knowledge was out there about this item. I apologize if any of my posts offended anyone.

[Jerry Ficchi]

I was trying to pass along information to those who haven’t had the opportunity to handle these gloves and wasn’t intending to belittle those seeking knowledge. My point, all along, has been that one must look to all resources, not just one. What is a disservice, I believe, is that this glove was mentioned along with an article on the uncovering of fake endorsed gloves. But even more so, the advice given in reference to the Jackson was “do your homeworkâ€

[vintagebrett]

I completely agree that one should tap into as many resources as possible. That is why I'm glad that you've shared the information you've been able to gather. However, when one looks at the information available to glove collectors, there is a limited amount that one can tap into. Personally, I think Joe goes above and beyond in terms of sending out a newsletter and putting out guides - I find these very valuable resources and I look forward to each new issue. He has also spent countless hours communicating information that he has with fellow collectors. For years, this was one of the only ways that glove collectors could share information - through the newsletter, phone conversations, regional meetings.. The internet has opened up a whole new world to all collecting communities.

As I've stated before, one of the main reasons I created this forum was for people to share information. I'd really like it if we could get people from all stages of glove collecting involved here - long time collectors and newcomers both. Obviously disagreements and differences opinions are going to happen. Although this thread of posts might seem a little hostile, I believe it's important to share your differences. As long as the conversations are civilized and respectful, I think that everyone stands to benefit. Jerry, I'm glad you have so much knowledge and I'd love for you to stick around and join our conversations. I know my dad bought a George Sisler from you a while back that is one of his favorite gloves.

I hope no one is turned off by these posts or converstations - I think it's important to discuss these things.

[softball66]

Jerry makes some valid points about the Jackson glove. But I'm wondering why he makes some of these as an advanced collector.
Glenn, in his writeup, makes the Jackson glove sound like the second coming. Will someone put his description up here? For myself Jackson is the most mythicized (not sure that's a word) player in baseball behind Ruth. We know George Kelly was a D&M endorser and had a store model glove. Dazzy Vance doesn't show up as an endorser or having a D&M store glove in the material we have. But this is Dazzy Vance and not Joe Jackson.Vance later became a BIG Ken Wel endorser. I knew Grover Alexander was a D&M endorser (but didn't know of a store model glove with his name on it) and have an ad by Grover stating such and helped the Alexander owner at that time with that information. I know Jackson endorsed and used D&Ms as a D&M ad exists with Jackson promoting a D&M first base mitt.
Jerry asks why we're questioning the Jackson glove. We're questioning it because the signature is weak. Why? I couldn't say more about it isn't without seeing it. We're questioning it because Glenn is calling it the "holy grail". We're questioning it because of the D&M information we have Jackson used at G56 model. We're questioning it because we don't have any evidence that Jackson's name was on a G24L. Maybe the advanced collectors do have this information from D&M (and I've got quite a big file on D&M catalogs and history) that Jackson's name is on this store model glove. The window of opportunity for Jackson's name to be on a glove is limited to a short period of time and not after 1920 and we have 1917 and 1919 catalogs that don't show Jackson with a store glove. Jerry states that he has a vast amount of information that the rest of us don't have. Well please share it with us Jerry.
I questioned the Jackson glove in my newsletter because I knew who the seller was at that point and because of an unfortunate incident happening early in the hobby I was with a gentleman who had to send three gloves back to him because three of us "maybe not so advanced" collectors thought the signtaures were faked on the gloves. Whether they were or not it is not known and maybe even the seller at that point didn't know. They've not shown up again. I questioned it because the signature is weak and this is sometimes a tell-tale sign of an issue. Sharply stamped gloves are more likely to be orginal but the fakes on these will have some issues.
Now let's look at this fact. Glenn has a vested interest in believing this glove is good and it may be. I have no interest whatsoever in the glove except to call a valid question on it. I don't think Jerry has an interest in it either, past or present. I've never heard of Glenn selling an item that he thought was bogus. He's an active buyer and seller of gloves and other memorabilia and I believe he has a sharp eye for his merchandise.
I don't know if Jerry has seen and handled the glove, but would ask that he would help with the evidence on this glove. I'm asking too for Jerry to share this D&M background information he has or at least cite it in his post.
And thanks Jerry for asking collectors to send photocopies of catalogs to us that we don't have for inclusion in a new glove catalog book. And if you have more info on D&M that I don't have, please send it along too.

[THELUCKYDOGKIND]

I wasn't planning on jumping back into this debate but would like to just ask a question. Why does a weak signature throw up such a red flag for this glove? If the stamping were stronger would this make it look more legit? It would still be a white Jackson glove and a one of a kind. I am no were near as knowledgable as Joe, Jerry, and Jim but as far as D&M gloves go I have owned, sold, trade over 200 D&M gloves in my 7 plus years of collecting. The one thing I have seen is their stamping methods seem to be inconsistant at best. Some were pressed into the leather and other look like it was just an ink stamping. I had a Joe Bush full web that was at one time white but was very dirty and worn and the signature was still pretty strong ( I think Jim may have that one now ) and on the flip side of that I owned a Val Picnich catchers mitt that was top of the line all the bells an whistles and was almost mint condition and the signature was black ink stamped and faded. If that mitt had even been used alittle the stamping would have been gone long ago. In the case of the Picinich mitt I could not find that model number in any of my D&M catalogs or any listed in Joes guides of copied catalogs. Also had a Max Carey that the I would have never located the signature if I didn't have the exact catalog the glove was in with the picture of the exact glove and signature location. But the glove was in excellent condition with very little wear and not all letters in the stamper were still there.
I also don't think that it is too far fetched to think that glove companies produced gloves that were not listed in their catalogs and maybe even made for major league players as gifts, new models for them to try and see if they liked, etc. . Nice glove Glenn, if I had the money I would buy it in a minute!

[softball66]

Good point lucky dog. Just because the stamping is faded doesn't mean it's bad and D&Ms were a bit inconsistent perhaps due to stamping process and perhaps due to leather. These white gloves are often an open knap leather (snuffed tan) and suede. I tried cleaning one at one time and wished that I hadn't, it turned yellowish brown. Oh brother!
But faded stamping does throw up a flag unfortunately as I've now probably seen more faked glove stampings than the average guy. Crisp readible stamping can also be of the dubious variety but has some giveaways. And you question why this glove? Because it has other issues. A one of a kind as have been other questionable gloves. No catalog background on the glove has yet been presented. The fact that suspicious Joe Jackson stamped gloves have shown up in the past (block letters) that had the usual stamping problems and no pedigree.
And the fact that this is Joe Jackson (read my previous post) and not
Bill Wambgans and the asking price is $10,000 seems to make it worth looking into. If Glenn wants to send the glove to me, I'll be glad to take a look at it, even without my advanced degree.

[Jerry Ficchi]

Thank you, Joe. What you contributed this morning is exactly what is needed. You provided information based on your experience, most notably questioning the ethics of an owner prior to Glenn and glove ephemera (cataloging and advertising). My jab at you earlier was simply because you said, “do your homeworkâ€

[softball66]

Jerry, I don't disagree that the glove is real it's just that we all have questions based on certain issues. When gloves show up for the first time especially as one as described by the owner/seller then it gets our attention. I had the same question when the other early Jacksons, Gehrig, the recent 1950s Ruth and another 20 some odd 1950s gloves came up in recent years. Where do they come from, any supporting data, etc.?
On to your remark that no one questioned the other like gloves you refer to. I'd never heard of nor seen the Vance. I thought at the time the Alexander had some validity as a store or gamer because he used D&Ms at one time as did many other star players. Never saw the glove and it was not on public display at the time. Kelly's D&M made sense as he had a store model glove, logic takes it that he might have had others. As you know our catalog book is missing many years when these gloves or other player names could have been offered. Meusel is a good example. I did find mention that he used a D&M G97.
Weak signature vs. strong signature. Yes, I'd prefer to see a stong signature for good reasons. Weak signatures might tend to hide suspicious marks. Do font sizes match other similar gloves, etc? Strong sig. would help make a better decision.

Now we come to the part where I feel people are putting words in my mouth. I'm not a big user of the word "Holy Grail". That's a term probably reserved for more advance collectors and bigger spenders than my budget. And I don't remember having talked to Jerry about the G42 Jackson at all. I did to Glenn because he found it and I was delighted because a G42 had shown up and it was one that we had made re-issues on. Don't think I would have called it a "Holy Grail" but maybe I wrote that in the newsletter or said that. Let me know if you find it. Significant for Nocona collectors at the time and Glenn was one of the most rabid of Nocona guys, with I believe was the largest Nocona glove collection at the time.
But we're running out of "Holy Grails" here and you know what the Davinci code said about that.
All in all Jerry and Glenn have some very solid and positive points in the Jackson glove's favor. I hope Glenn gets a nice price on his glove. And the G24 was a top line glove and used by several major leaguers. Buck Herzog designed the G24. Glenn's a conscientous and helpful guy and Jerry brings fervor and drive to the hobby. These discussions have really enlightended, I'm sure, a lot of forum readers.
You guys know my preference on gloves, something I can go out and play catch with. Now, about my "Riverboat" Smith glove.......

[Jerry Ficchi]

I sure had a lot of fun over the past few days and I see that readers have flocked to this topic in decent size. Wished more would have chimed in, but it looks like this forum's audience has grown and that's a good thing.

Keep it up, Brett, and say "hi" to your Dad for me. Remember, collect what you like and learn as much as you can.

[vintagebrett]

Yes, I was going to comment on the number of views on this topic - over 1200 and counting. Wow!

I hope everyone who has been stopping by as a guest to view this topic signs up and joins us in other conversations. The more the merrier and the more information shared, the better!!

[MVALZ]

I know this Rookie is enjoying it! I'm just gonna be a sponge and soak up all this info

[mudman]

Like I said before, I am learning a whole lot. I am really enjoying everyone's input on this subject. This is what this forum is all about.

[stockbuddy]

Hi guys, I appreciate the discussion that has occured on this Jackson glove. It would sure be nice to have my hands in one of those old timer gloves that has been on the discussion table the last couple of days. Looking forward to hearing from more "old timers" in this hobby on various topics as they come up and again I too appreciate the discussions. Keep it up.

Best to you.
Dave, fellow glover

[vintagebrett]

Hi

I'm posting this picture for Jerry and he will discuss it: