What are thoughts on this pair of signatures?  I believe that dated year “1939” corresponds to Williams rookie year.

Thoughts on a reasonable price?



Tags: Foxx, Jimmie, Ted, Williams

Views: 189

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"Do you feel that I can purchase with confidence?"

To be perfectly honest? I'd pass and opt to stick to a "run of the mill", more "normal" looking Williams sigs. This is a cut, not a pic or a ball, and I'm still not convinced to a comfortable degree that the signature with the lesser seen "W", or one like it, may have served as the exemplar used for this signature. I still think it looks dissimilar when compared to the one we're now zeroed in on, the one of him as a young man. There's a few things going on around the "W" that look off kilter to me, even after seeing the one from 1939.

Thanks Woody! I am looking to purchase it more for the Foxx cut than Williams. I have more Williams and Mantle balls and photos than I need.

While I am not convinced on the Williams, I would feel a lot better if the consensus on the Foxx was “authentic”.  

What are the thoughts of you and the other resident experts on Jimmie Foxx?  

Daniel S. I would never want to give anyone a bum steer. Especially you, in this case. I apologize. I'm glad you're weighing all your options, first. I'd said in an earlier post that the auto looked good. What I meant to say was, it could be good. I know I've seen that autograph before and it was a similar one with the proper PSA in JSA credentials, but for the life of me I can't find it. That Williams is certainly an unusual one, with that funky looking W. Woody's right. You should stick to a more normal looking authentic Williams autograph. I consider myself an expert and the formost authority on absolutely nothing. Lol. But we're all learning from one another other.

Thanks for the caveat, John.  I appreciate your input and recognize the inherent risk when purchasing an atypical graph like Ted’s here.  If the Foxx is legit, then I will pursue.  Otherwise, I will steer clear.  

"...I'd pass and opt to stick to a "run of the mill", more "normal" looking Williams sigs..." - Woody

"...You should stick to a more normal looking authentic Williams autograph...." - John

This is sound advice nearly ALL of the time. I give it myself often. The only exceptions would be very early/unique specimens and/or unusual/"special" items - as Woody notes this is just a cut.

Going after 1 of 2 sigs where 1 appears atypical at best and the other seems nearly impossible to mat appealingly...if the Williams is as it questioned here - problematic  - it could affect the other signature. If cut/trimmed or other it again might well impact the Fox.

The problem I'm having with the Foxx is not so much a technical one because this one is nearly a textbook example, aside from the momentary correction of the telemetry of the pen at he bottom of the J, where it looks uncharacteristically uncertain and shaky.

My hesitation to green light the Foxx is that it looks precisely like one I've seen before. I remember it verbatim! And I've got a great memory when it comes to this (remember the "To Carlton", inscribed Marilyn Monroe "white glove presentation" piece? lol). I've seen this Foxx, on plain paper like this, an index card-like medium, and this signature is real close, if not precisely the same as I remember. Every detail. That piece did not have a Williams signed over it.

I'm going to go through my files and see if I saved it!

Eric and Woody,

I greatly appreciate your input, guys, and will likely not pursue

thanks again





  • Add Photos
  • View All


  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2020   Created by Steve Cyrkin Community Mgr..   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service