PDA

View Full Version : I'm almost POSITIVE this card features Shoeless Joe...


Pages : [1] 2 3

brett
05-21-2010, 02:14 PM
Hello, I'm new to this board and I wanted to share an observation and get everybody's thoughts. In my 1912 T202 Hassan Triple Folder set I noticed a picture on the center panel of the "Lord Catches His Man" card and I'm sure the Cleveland player sliding is Shoeless Joe Jackson wearing the Cleveland style jersey that he wore when he played for them during that time. I looked around the net and I couldn't find mention of this anywhere and the back of the card doesn't mention the sliding player's name but it sure looks JUST like him. Opinions?

barrysloate
05-21-2010, 02:17 PM
Welcome to the board Brett, and I must say your first post is a provocative one. I certainly see some resemblance, but that's a tiny photo and it's tough to do really good photo i.d. with it. But it's food for thought.

Mrc32
05-21-2010, 02:25 PM
Couldn't it also be Lee Tannehill who is also featured on the other portion of the card?

barrysloate
05-21-2010, 02:28 PM
I was looking at the "C" on the uniform of the sliding player and by the power of suggestion thought "Cleveland." But it's probably Chicago so that rules out Jackson.

David Halpen
05-21-2010, 02:30 PM
It is not Tannehill since he played on the same team as Lord (White Sox).

Tcards-Please
05-21-2010, 02:31 PM
Couldn't it also be Lee Tannehill who is also featured on the other portion of the card?

Michael,

Not likely as Tannehill played his career with the White Sox and Lord was on the same team.

Brett,

Welcome to the board and great observation. It seems like it could be ole Shoeless.

r/
Frank

What David said.

barrysloate
05-21-2010, 02:34 PM
I just checked Marc Okkonen's uniform book for 1910-11, and the sliding player is wearing a Cleveland home jersey, and the fielder a Chicago visiting jersey. Interesting.

David Halpen
05-21-2010, 02:35 PM
As Brett mentioned, the player sliding is wearing a Cleveland uniform.

Here is a T5 of Jackson from Hunt Auction:

http://www.huntauctions.com/live/img24/728.jpg

brett
05-21-2010, 02:35 PM
Hi Barry... Thanks for the replies, but that is definitely a Cleveland jersey from that era, and here's a pic of Shoeless Joe wearing it with Nap and Ty...

barrysloate
05-21-2010, 02:36 PM
Hi Brett- we were posting at the same time, and my last one confirmed what you just said.

Matt
05-21-2010, 02:38 PM
The jersey is Cleveland, and what can be made out of the player resembles Shoeless Joe, but as already mentioned I think a conclusive ID is going to be tough. I can think of a few others on the Cleveland team at the time (Falkenberg, Birmingham, James off the top of my head) who it could also be.

Matt
05-21-2010, 02:42 PM
Here is the 1912 Naps team (couldn't get a 1911 quickly):
http://www.blackbetsy.com/imagefarm/1912-naps-team-photo.jpg

brett
05-21-2010, 02:49 PM
I really appreciate everybody's thoughts and I'm happy that my first post wasn't a stupid one. Anyway, I'm a pretty big aficionado of Cleveland baseball history, and I know who all of the other guys you've mentioned are. When you look at this card in person it looks so much like Shoeless Joe's face that I'm almost sure that we've discovered something together here. I just wish we could see in the picture if he's wearing shoes. :D

LEIDEMEG
05-21-2010, 02:54 PM
Why do I have this weird feeling people are scouring their personal collections and ebay looking for "Lord Catches His Man" cards:)

Peter_Spaeth
05-21-2010, 02:56 PM
Check the ear. :)

rdixon1208
05-21-2010, 02:57 PM
Welcome to the board Brett and congratulations. Your first post has gotten more response than all of mine put together:eek:

I don't have much to add about the card except that there are some great photo ID guys here. I'll be following this thread closely.

4815162342
05-21-2010, 02:59 PM
Why do I have this weird feeling people are scouring their personal collections and ebay looking for "Lord Catches His Man" cards:)

http://cgi.ebay.com/1912-T202-Hassan-Triple-Folders-Lord-Catches-Man-PSA-4-/230471696199?cmd=ViewItem&pt=US_Baseball&hash=item35a92eff47

Mrc32
05-21-2010, 03:08 PM
It is not Tannehill since he played on the same team as Lord (White Sox).


Yeah....makes sense

brett
05-21-2010, 03:10 PM
My last opinion on why I believe it's him is that on the back of almost every other center panel in the set it mentions all the players names involved in the picture as many of them were also featured on the side panels of other cards in the set. For players like Nap Lajoie or Sam Crawford who were only featured on center panels, their names are still mentioned in the back descriptions. Because Shoeless never authorized any tobacco cards and just became a full-time player that year I think it might explain why his name is not on the back of the card. Other Cleveland players who were named on the backs of other center panels or had their own side panels were Birmingham, Turner, Lajoie, Ball and Stovall. Besides, just look at his face... I'm 99.9% sure it's him.

tedzan
05-21-2010, 03:13 PM
The Triple Folders are a 1911 issue, which would most likely reflect the 1910 season. Shoeless Joe played most of the 1910
season for the New Orleans Pelicans (and batted .354 to lead the the League). With Cleveland, he played in only 20 games
Therefore, the probability of the guy in this centerfold being Joe Jax is minimized. However, it does resemble him.

Nice observation.


TED Z

botn
05-21-2010, 03:23 PM
I thought the T202s were issued in 1912...

brett
05-21-2010, 03:23 PM
The Triple Folders are a 1911 issue, which would most likely reflect the 1910 season. Shoeless Joe played most of the 1910
season for the New Orleans Pelicans (and batted .354 to lead the the League). With Cleveland, he played in only 20 games
Therefore, the probability of the guy in this centerfold being Joe Jax is minimized. However, it does resemble him.

Nice observation.


TED Z

Hi Ted, no disrespect but this set is DEFINITELY from 1912. I've worked very long and hard to put a high-grade set together and it's my favorite set of all-time. Here's the description from Wikipedia...

The T202 Baseball card, also known as the Hassan Triple Folder was manufactured and distributed in the year 1912. The card was inserted into packs of "Hassan Cork Tip Cigarettes".[1] Several characteristics make this vintage Baseball card a standout amongst other forms of tobacco advertising of the time and lend to its value as a highly sought after collectible.

First and foremost the cards are quite large in comparison to the T205 (1911) and T206 (1909 to 1911) cards from the same time period. The T202 was designed as a triptych or as it is referred to in the baseball card collecting hobby a triple folder. Each of the end panels displayed an individual player in color, while the center panel contained a black and white photo of "live action" baseball players.[2] To insert the card into packs of cigarettes the two end panels were folded over the center panel. When the card is fully extended it measures 5 1/4" wide by 2 1/4" high.[3]

The T202 set consisted of 132 total cards with numerous combinations of end panels and center panels. Prominent players of the time who appear on the most end and center panel combinations are Christy Mathewson, who appears on ten different cards all on end panels, and Ty Cobb, who appears on a combination of over six different cards including end and center panels.

DixieBaseball
05-21-2010, 03:36 PM
The picture looks more like Joe than any other player I could imagine from Cleveland. I think Brett's theory is right on... Very interesting observation and I am surprised that it has never been brought up before.... Has this been under the radar all these years ? I think it makes sense and looks just like him pending the ear lobe is not too low and the point of his nose is perpendicular to his eye brow. :)

tbob
05-21-2010, 03:46 PM
Too bad the card isn't entitled "Jackson out at third". Of course if it were, it would be selling for 4 figures.

Steve D
05-21-2010, 04:02 PM
Apparently, someone thinks it's Joe Jax.....three of the cards have been BIN'd on ebay just this afternoon.


Steve

Matt
05-21-2010, 04:07 PM
apparently, someone thinks it's joe jax.....three of the cards have been bin'd on ebay just this afternoon.


lol
I think one of the W game action cards was similarly purported to be of Cobb - they still sell as commons. Too many on the Cleveland team with similar characteristics to tell here with any certainty, though if Mark says otherwise, I reserve the right to retract my comment :).

packs
05-21-2010, 04:36 PM
Baseball-Reference is showing that there were 38 players on Cleveland's team in 1911. So if this photo is from 1911, there is a 1 in 38 chance that it is Jackson. Personally, the photo is so hard to see I don't think you could really make a determination. But purely gut feeling tells me that Jackson looks like a baby in his T5 and that guy sliding into third has the look of a grizzled veteran to me. It also looks like th sliding player's stirrups don't continue to their foot, while both photos of Jackson show him wearing stirrups that go all the way to his feet. Although that could just be the angle.

barrysloate
05-21-2010, 04:47 PM
Let's see if this card starts showing up on ebay with the description T202 Joe Jackson. My gut says it will.

barrysloate
05-21-2010, 04:51 PM
I also think Brett deserves an award for the best first post ever!

Matt
05-21-2010, 04:52 PM
Let's see if this card starts showing up on ebay with the description T202 Joe Jackson. My gut says it will.

I don't think there's any doubt. And the beauty of it is that unless someone can prove it's absolutely not him, the seller can't be held accountable.

brett
05-21-2010, 04:52 PM
Baseball-Reference is showing that there were 38 players on Cleveland's team in 1911. So if this photo is from 1911, there is a 1 in 38 chance that it is Jackson. Personally, the photo is so hard to see I don't think you could really make a determination. But purely gut feeling tells me that Jackson looks like a baby in his T5 and that guy sliding into third has the look of a grizzled veteran to me. It also looks like th sliding player's stirrups don't continue to their foot, while both photos of Jackson show him wearing stirrups that go all the way to his feet. Although that could just be the angle.

I'd say it's a much better than 1 in 38 chance. Half the guys you're talking about were pitchers who had a total combined 537 plate appearances, while Joe had 641 alone that year. He also led the team (by far) in hits, doubles, triples, steals, and average (.408 that year). In fact, if you want to go by stats it's MOST LIKELY that it would be him sliding into 3rd in that picture. Also, he looked very grizzled from a young age. Look at more pics of him. He also has the same ears, face, and long and lean build.

Tcards-Please
05-21-2010, 04:58 PM
After I analyzed the evidence, with a dual-column gas chromatograph, Hewlett-Packard model 5710a with flame analyzing detectors, I have concluded that it could be anyone on the Cleveland team in 1911, but if I were going to make an educated guess, I would say it is either Joe Jackson or Ivy Olson.

I couldn't resist using a line from one of my favorite movies :D

r/
Frank

brett
05-21-2010, 05:05 PM
Also, this is how old he looked in 1910...

Ladder7
05-21-2010, 05:19 PM
Thought provoking... Though it means little, "Cobb sliding" was 1909.

Peter_Spaeth
05-21-2010, 05:28 PM
No disrespect, but on the basis of that tiny image, with cap pulled down, no one could reasonably be 99 percent sure about the identify of this player -- in my opinion.

Steve D
05-21-2010, 05:38 PM
After I analyzed the evidence, with a dual-column gas chromatograph, Hewlett-Packard model 5710a with flame analyzing detectors, I have concluded that it could be anyone on the Cleveland team in 1911, but if I were going to make an educated guess, I would say it is either Joe Jackson or Ivy Olson.

I couldn't resist using a line from one of my favorite movies :D

r/
Frank


So you're Vinny's cousin eh?????

Sorry, it was waaay tooooooo easyyyyyyyy ;)

Steve

CW
05-21-2010, 07:46 PM
Interesting observation, Brett, and welcome to N54!

Here's a closeup image, cropped, with a little bit more contrast...

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/5239/shoeless.jpg

JasonL
05-21-2010, 07:55 PM
He never would have been thrown out at third.
ever.

:cool:

tedzan
05-21-2010, 08:00 PM
Upon closer observation, he does pass the "ear test"....I have to agree, it's Joe Jax.

But, it begs the question....why wasn't Joe featured in this set ?

He did bat .408 in 1911, and he certainly deserves to be on one of the panels.

Actually, the bigger question is....why isn't Joe on any of the ATC cards (1912-1917)
featuring him as a Major Leaguer ? ?


TED Z

Peter_Spaeth
05-21-2010, 08:09 PM
I don't see how we can make a positive identification without being able to see his hair or his eyes, on a tiny image. I don't disagree that there is a resemblance, and it could well be he, but that hardly is proof positive.

Chris Counts
05-21-2010, 08:18 PM
Curiously, "Lord catches his man" bears a resemblance to "Harry Lord at third." On that card, there's also an unnamed Cleveland player sliding in, but you can't see his face ...

DixieBaseball
05-21-2010, 08:24 PM
Peter - There is not proof positive, but I think common sense says this is probably him due to resemblence, ears on blow up, etc. -- I would say it is more likely him than anyone else on the team. I like Brett's argument even though it can't be proved either way.

Were these panels taken from a photo/negative ? Was there a particular photographer for the orginal panel ? I don't know much about the T202's, but it would be neat to know the source of the middle panel...

sportscardtheory
05-21-2010, 08:28 PM
How could it POSSIBLY go this long without anyone noticing.

henson1855
05-21-2010, 08:37 PM
It could be Joe. I am thinking it is.

Peter_Spaeth
05-21-2010, 08:41 PM
According to this site

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.blackbetsy.com/imagefarm/jackson-sliding-into-3rd.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.blackbetsy.com/joepics2.htm&usg=__BwaquXJeLpsaQSJ1ZgbM20T2raU=&h=319&w=400&sz=21&hl=en&start=13&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=JoY7XS39MiwDCM:&tbnh=99&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dshoeless%2Bjoe%2Bjackson%2Bsliding%26 um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26tbs%3Disch:1

This is a pic of Jax sliding into third

Peter_Spaeth
05-21-2010, 08:42 PM
weird almost simultaneous posting lol

henson1855
05-21-2010, 08:47 PM
That's funny we both had the same idea Peter.

Steve D
05-21-2010, 08:49 PM
It would be very nice if the original photo could be located in an archive somewhere. Then, we might be able to get a definitive answer.


Steve

HRBAKER
05-21-2010, 09:39 PM
I don't think that without finding the original photograph with subject documentation that any definitive answer can be had. But the resemblance is certainly there. Nice catch possibly.

4815162342
05-21-2010, 09:44 PM
http://cgi.ebay.com/1912-T202-Hassan-Triple-Folders-Lord-Catches-Man-PSA-4-/230471696199?cmd=ViewItem&pt=US_Baseball&hash=item35a92eff47

Ok somebody fess up! Who bought it?

tbob
05-21-2010, 09:57 PM
I think it will always remain a mystery. It could by Joe, but just as easily Terry Turner or Ivy Olson.
Turner seated with Jackson, the other two photos are of Ivy.

tbob
05-21-2010, 09:59 PM
Turner's T207

bmarlowe1
05-21-2010, 10:59 PM
Peter is as usual correct and his comments not only show considerable common sense, but also uncommonly good understanding of the this particular subject. Given what has been posted - it is simply not possible to tell who is sliding into third. If a high res scan will show more detail - let's see it. If more detail is not discernable - then we'll never know unless someone finds the original photo. Absent that , there should be no conclusion as to who it is.

I think the board has made a lot of progress recently with respect to jumping all over wishfull speculation as to images, There used to be a lot more of it, and it's almost always been wrong.

I'm sure Brett hasn't seen any of the numerous past threads on this subject - so I don't mean to jump all over him personally. I just don't like it because it feeds into the mind set that has allowed for so much mis-representation in the past.

familytoad
05-21-2010, 11:07 PM
Folks,

It's not the ears or nose we need to be concerned with.

I think the T202 is Joe, but we need to zoom in to see his lips.

Please compare with this official, authentic photo of Joe before you make your decision.

Joe ain't grizzled. He's purty.

Pup6913
05-22-2010, 07:11 AM
I think some guys are hoping for sure now and will back it up because they went an bought every T202 of this out there. I looked at several different sites that I am sure would have these cards and guess what?


Someone has bought every one of these at asking prices. No way to prove its him but watch for the guys that are battling for it to be and I am sure we will know who bought into an unproved hype:D Might as well buy shiny stuff with that gamble!

Abravefan11
05-22-2010, 07:37 AM
Looking at the Cleveland Home uniforms you will see that in 1910 and 1912 the collars were dark. In 1911 they were white.

If color wasn't added to the photo on the card the picture is from 1910 or 1912. The photo posted by other members of Jackson sliding into third could be 1911 but hard to say since the collar is turned up.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_UrSHvogCrmM/S_fcL9eaOUI/AAAAAAAACiw/dYtwAFSvH5k/s720/Recently%20Updated24.jpg

ChiefBenderForever
05-22-2010, 07:48 AM
Good find Tim ! So now we have the "magic collar theory" and no examples currently for sale. Great observation Brett, I think it might be him and interested to see how it pans out. Simple reason as to why it hasn't been noticed before- T206 Maddness !!

botn
05-22-2010, 10:28 AM
If Tim is correct, that the Naps uniforms did not have the black collar in 1911 and color was not added to the T202 photo, then the player sliding could not be Shoeless. He played the last 20 games of the 1910 season with Cleveland and only 2 of those games were against the White Sox and the games were in Chicago. No way the image used on the T202 was from 1912...

Chris Counts
05-22-2010, 10:48 AM
While I am a big fan of the uniform data base, I have found some inconsistencies, so I wouldn't take it as the definitive word. I would think 1st generation photos that are dated would be the best bet for determining the year. At some point, a print of the image will turn up ...

If Tim is correct, that the Naps uniforms did not have the black collar in 1911 and color was not added to the T202 photo, then the player sliding could not be Shoeless. He played the last 20 games of the 1910 season with Cleveland and only 2 of those games were against the White Sox and the games were in Chicago. No way the image used on the T202 was from 1912...

e107collector
05-22-2010, 12:40 PM
If you look at the T202's "Good Play at Third" & "Baker gets his Man," there is a Cleveland Player shown in the center panel of each.

Does anyone know whick Cleveland player is shown. Maybe it's the same one in question?

I posted links below.

Thanks,
Tony

http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bidplace.aspx?itemid=13476

http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bidplace.aspx?itemid=13460

SethY
05-22-2010, 12:48 PM
I think the "Baker gets his man" card has the best chance of those two in being Jackson in the picture.

botn
05-22-2010, 12:58 PM
I am going to see if I can do a little research on the box scores which include a play by play for the games played in Cleveland against Chicago in 1911. Caught stealing is a stat which was tracked. There were 10 Cleveland home games against Chicago in 1911.

The Cleveland player in the Baker Gets His Man does look similar to the player in the Lord Catches His Man.

SethY
05-22-2010, 01:04 PM
When would Cleveland be playing Philadelpia?

botn
05-22-2010, 01:15 PM
This is from an image on the Blackbetsy site...Taken at the Addie Joss Benefit Game on July 24, 1911 and Shoeless has the inner black collar.

botn
05-22-2010, 01:22 PM
When would Cleveland be playing Philadelpia?

Cleveland hosted Philadelphia A's 11 times in 1911.

sreader3
05-22-2010, 01:24 PM
In the photo posted in the preceding post Jackson's right sock is WHITE up to about mid-shin, whereas the right sock of the Cleveland player on his left is DARK all the way to the pantline. The same appears true in the T202 of interest--the sliding Cleveland player's right sock is WHITE up to about mid-shin. Or am I missing something?

sreader3
05-22-2010, 01:38 PM
Or perhaps the white right "sock" could be some kind of wrap Jackson wore in 1911 for a right ankle sprain? Any history on this?

botn
05-22-2010, 01:55 PM
Unable to link the panoramic photo but if you go to http://www.blackbetsy.com/joepics2.htm and move a quarter of the way down on the page to Panorama Photo From Addie Joss Day you can see the entire photo. Interesting to note that only one other player in that image has a white sock on the right foot and that player appears to be identified as Bill Lindsay and he was only on base 17 times in 1911. Odds are the only time he touched 3rd base were for the 15 games he played that position. Not sure what the significance is of the single white sock.

On the T202 Baker Gets His Man the lower part of the right leg is obscured.

sreader3
05-22-2010, 02:02 PM
Here's another 1911 picture of Joe, Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker from the Addie Joss Benefit game (Cobb lost his Tiger uni and is wearing Cleveland instead). Note that Jackson's right "sock" is white to about mid-shin.

I found another 1911 photo of Jackson scoring at League Park. Once again, the white right "sock" to mid-shin appears.

I'm thinking the T202 is Jackson.

botn
05-22-2010, 02:17 PM
Does anyone have access to an archive for box scores from 1911 from the Cleveland Plain Dealer? I checked the online archives for the New York Times and while they have box scores they do not address the caught stealing stat. Would the Sporting News have anything? Here is an example from the NYT online archive from the game between Naps and White Sox on May 5th. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9502E2DD1E3EE033A25754C0A9639C946096D6CF

Cleveland hosted Chicago on the following dates in 1911:

5/3-5/6
6/28-7/1
9/4 for a doubleheader

barrysloate
05-22-2010, 02:24 PM
Greg- did you check Retrosheet, which is linked to this site? I'll take a look now.

Just checked- no box scores for 1911. Some years just have line scores.

botn
05-22-2010, 02:28 PM
Hi Barry.

I did check the site and exchanged emails with David who runs the site. They do not have 1911 up yet. He suggested the New York Times. Someone has the play by play for these games or at the minimum a more detailed box score.

sportscardtheory
05-22-2010, 02:33 PM
Wow. Those photos with him wearing that white half-sock are pretty convincing. What would the odds be that another player was wearing the same white half-sock on his right leg.

Tcards-Please
05-22-2010, 02:37 PM
Greg,

How do we know that he was really "caught stealing" and not just thrown out on a regularly played ball?

r/
Frank

packs
05-22-2010, 02:47 PM
I looked at the Cleveland T200 and Jackson has his stirrups all the way down on both legs. If Jackson was injured and wearing the half stirrup for a limited time, it would be very lucky to have caught him in action with his injury. The Joss game was towards the end of July, when were the photos for the T5 set taken? Were they taken before the 1911 season, after, during? He's wearing his stirrups down in that photo.

I think the big question is, are there any players featured on the centerfolds of the T202 set that don't also appear in the set as a tab? I know some images are identified and some aren't, but are there any images that aren't identified on the card, but can be identified unconditionally, and the player doesn't appear in the set itself? For example, in the Cobb stealing photo he is sliding into Jimmy Austin, who also is featured in the set as a tab.

Abravefan11
05-22-2010, 02:51 PM
Wow. Those photos with him wearing that white half-sock are pretty convincing. What would the odds be that another player was wearing the same white half-sock on his right leg.

There is another Cleveland player in the Joss photo wearing the same half white on the right leg, another just on the left, and one on both legs.

Peter_Spaeth
05-22-2010, 03:15 PM
Probably an ankle wrap. There are lots of them in the Addie Joss photo.

tbob
05-22-2010, 03:31 PM
The Cleveland player two to the right of Lajoie also has a right ankle wrap.

botn
05-22-2010, 03:59 PM
Greg,

How do we know that he was really "caught stealing" and not just thrown out on a regularly played ball?

r/
Frank

Frank,

You are correct. The back of the card only states "The runner was out at third and he might well be; for the bag was being held down by the able Harry D. Lord of the Chicago White Sox." Finding a play by play which covers the game in such detail that it recorded ordinary put outs is going to be a long shot. I thought if a play by play could be found which listed the caught stealing stat it might be more conclusive one way or another.

Greg

Exhibitman
05-22-2010, 05:42 PM
Find games Lord and JJ both played in during 1910-1911

Pup6913
05-22-2010, 05:49 PM
Looking at the Cleveland Home uniforms you will see that in 1910 and 1912 the collars were dark. In 1911 they were white.

If color wasn't added to the photo on the card the picture is from 1910 or 1912. The photo posted by other members of Jackson sliding into third could be 1911 but hard to say since the collar is turned up.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_UrSHvogCrmM/S_fcL9eaOUI/AAAAAAAACiw/dYtwAFSvH5k/s720/Recently%20Updated24.jpg

Has anyone missed the fact that the blurred leg has a white wrap on it also. You can see where the white wrap and the black sock start.

Pup6913
05-22-2010, 05:56 PM
I circled the area for anyone to look at the specific spot I was mentioning

e107collector
05-22-2010, 06:14 PM
The image is kind of tough to make out. It might be a pile of dirt being kicked up from him sliding?

Is there anyway to zoom in on that spot?

Pup6913
05-22-2010, 06:30 PM
you can make out the shoe and the start of the black sock. its awfully light there to be a black sock behind what little dirt is up in the air. I almost wonder if this was a posed shot cinsidering the small amount of dirt being kicked up in colation with a full out slide. Also he does not look do determined to take that bag like someone stealing base or going for extra bags.

benjulmag
05-22-2010, 06:33 PM
Second best post on this thread (after Brett) is bmarlowe1. Without more, we'll never know.

That said, I strongly suspect the market value of this card has increased materially and that many/most future descriptions will make reference to Joe Jackson being depicted in the middle panel. In this hobby, fact often plays a very small role.

Pup6913
05-22-2010, 06:35 PM
Second best post on this thread (after Brett) is bmarlowe1. Without more, we'll never know.

That said, I strongly suspect the market value of this card has increased materially and that many/most future descriptions will make reference to Joe Jackson being depicted in the middle panel. In this hobby, fact often plays a very small role.

Sad but true:(

Abravefan11
05-22-2010, 06:55 PM
Second best post on this thread (after Brett) is bmarlowe1. Without more, we'll never know.

I agree whole heartedly with this statement but love threads like this. So much can be learned from the collective ideas of the group. Even when a thought or idea is proven wrong it's a learning experience.

HRBAKER
05-22-2010, 07:07 PM
Second best post on this thread (after Brett) is bmarlowe1. Without more, we'll never know.

That said, I strongly suspect the market value of this card has increased materially and that many/most future descriptions will make reference to Joe Jackson being depicted in the middle panel. In this hobby, fact often plays a very small role.


Was thinking the same thing. Maybe we can make an another possible addition to the "hobby myth" thread as well.

Easy506
05-22-2010, 08:21 PM
I think "Baker Gets His Man" looks more like Joe than the Lord card. The sliding players nose on the Lord card looks wider than Joe's long nose.

slidekellyslide
05-22-2010, 08:31 PM
This has been a fascinating thread. The question may never be answered, but the fact that it has never even been brought up on this board in the past is simply amazing to me. It was also fascinating to see this thread spark a bit of a a buying frenzy.

Vol
05-22-2010, 08:32 PM
Great thread.
I say it is Joe.

Now, off to ebay!

canjond
05-22-2010, 08:40 PM
You know - there is another card in the T02 set that looks identical to Joe... White sock on ONLY the right leg, sliding into a bag. Actually, of note, there are MANY cards in the T202 set that feature a Cleveland player sliding into a bag.

Eberfield/Milan looks like Joe, so do others...

Abravefan11
05-22-2010, 08:46 PM
Has a photo been found that is the same image as one used in the center panel of a T202?

slidekellyslide
05-22-2010, 08:47 PM
You know - there is another card in the T02 set that looks identical to Joe... White sock on ONLY the right leg, sliding into a bag. Actually, of note, there are MANY cards in the T202 set that feature a Cleveland player sliding into a bag.

Eberfield/Milan looks like Joe, so do others...

Careful Jon, you're going to cause another buying frenzy. :D

Matt
05-22-2010, 08:50 PM
And I'm thinking of the eBay sellers that have been sitting on their T202s asking 2x what the last one sold for, as they do all their cards, and they just made some sales. So glad we could re-enforce their business practices. :)

bmarlowe1
05-22-2010, 08:56 PM
The 3rd best post was by Benjulmag.

Well - since at least a few people here liked my post - let me hijack this thread for a moment and plug the Pictorial History Committee photo analysis newsletter that I write for SABR. It's called "Mystery Photo" for internal historical reasons - but that name really doesn't fit. It's all about rational photo analysis

They are all available for download, starting with the April 2008 issue, for exactly $0 each (I guess it would be a better deal if I paid people to download it).

The first few issues were weak - but I think it's gotten better over time (at least longer and more controversial). The May 2009 issue was devoted to photo auctions. So if you have nothing better to do, here they are from newest to oldest:

http://www.sabr.org/cmsFiles/Files/Mysteryphoto5-10.pdf

http://www.sabr.org/cmsFiles/Files/Mysteryphoto1-10.pdf

http://www.sabr.org/cmsFiles/Files/Mysteryphoto9-09.pdf

http://www.sabr.org/cmsFiles/Files/Mysteryphoto5-09.pdf

http://www.sabr.org/cmsFiles/Files/mysteryphoto2-09.pdf

http://www.sabr.org/cmsFiles/Files/Mysteryphoto9-08.pdf

http://www.sabr.org/cmsFiles/Files/Mysteryphoto6-08forpublication.pdf

http://www.sabr.org/cmsFiles/Files/FimoffMysteryPhotoColumn1.pdf

e107collector
05-22-2010, 09:05 PM
The center panel for the Too Late for Devlin T202's, show a Cleveland Player sliding in that resembles Joe Jackson.http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2010/389.html

tbob
05-22-2010, 09:15 PM
Next thing you know someone will say the guy on the Grassy Knoll in Dallas looks a lot like Shoeless Joe.

Kawika
05-22-2010, 09:16 PM
Mark: I just joined SABR a few months ago and hardly a day goes by that my email inbox doesn't have something from one of their committees. I just received your latest newsletter regarding the Richmond-Fatima Giants connection. It neatly summarized your discovery which was discussed on this board a few months back and made for a very interesting read. Rest assured that at least one of our ranks, namely me, will be part of your loyal following.

On another note, where's Ryan Christoff already in this thread? He is the go-to guy for JoJax spotting, is he not?

Matt
05-22-2010, 09:20 PM
Mark - just finished an issue - great stuff.
thanks!

bmarlowe1
05-22-2010, 09:22 PM
Thanks David & Matt. Don't forget that abravefan (Tim) discovered the photo that gave me 8 pages of material to write about.

T206DK
05-23-2010, 06:19 AM
yeah, I expect to see all you opportunists post your new T202's on the pick up thread. What a ridiculous stampede over something that will never be proven unless one of us is a time traveller.

barrysloate
05-23-2010, 06:44 AM
Well, if someone could find that original photo, and the label on the reverse reads "Joe Jackson tagged out on close play at second", then I think we have something. Save that, it's a compelling story, but still only conjecture.

Peter_Spaeth
05-23-2010, 08:23 AM
Guys --

That can't be Jackson. He's wearing shoes.

Peter Chao

Bob Lemke
05-23-2010, 09:46 AM
Let me also congratulate Brett on a great first contribution to this forum.

I have a full set of TSN microfilm for those years, which offered great box scores, but the film is in PA and I am WI.

For what it's worth, as someone mentioned, the National Game action card that is widely believed to picture Ty Cobb sliding sells (or at least carried a "book" value of 6X the other action cards in the set.

If corroborative evidence is found that it is, indeed, Joe Jax in an uncredited cameo on the T202, I could see similar increase in demand/price.

T206DK
05-23-2010, 10:43 AM
again, you will never prove that it is Jackson unless you find the photographer that took the picture or the original along with some sort of documentation saying it is Jackson. While intriguing, this thread will only serve to artificially jack the price up on yet another card. the player looks more like Lord than Jackson. This is wishfull thinking at best, and plays to the mindset of those that look for pots of gold at the ends of rainbows. Is that a UFO hovering in the sky outside the stadium in that picture above "Jacksons" head and to the left. Wow, this card has something for everyone. I think I see Jack the Ripper peering over the fence to look at Jackson's slide also. Unbelieveable ! what was he doing in America at this time

Tcards-Please
05-23-2010, 11:24 AM
the player looks more like Lord than Jackson.

Dave,

Sorry, no way the person sliding is either Harry Lord (who is pictured on the panel) or Bris Lord as he was with Philadelphia in 1911.

ChiefBenderForever
05-23-2010, 11:38 AM
again, you will never prove that it is Jackson unless you find the photographer that took the picture or the original along with some sort of documentation saying it is Jackson. While intriguing, this thread will only serve to artificially jack the price up on yet another card. the player looks more like Lord than Jackson. This is wishfull thinking at best, and plays to the mindset of those that look for pots of gold at the ends of rainbows. Is that a UFO hovering in the sky outside the stadium in that picture above "Jacksons" head and to the left. Wow, this card has something for everyone. I think I see Jack the Ripper peering over the fence to look at Jackson's slide also. Unbelieveable ! what was he doing in America at this time

You mad ?

Exhibitman
05-23-2010, 11:59 AM
again, you will never prove that it is Jackson unless you find the photographer that took the picture or the original along with some sort of documentation saying it is Jackson. While intriguing, this thread will only serve to artificially jack the price up on yet another card. the player looks more like Lord than Jackson. This is wishfull thinking at best, and plays to the mindset of those that look for pots of gold at the ends of rainbows. Is that a UFO hovering in the sky outside the stadium in that picture above "Jacksons" head and to the left. Wow, this card has something for everyone. I think I see Jack the Ripper peering over the fence to look at Jackson's slide also. Unbelieveable ! what was he doing in America at this time

you forgot about his wife, Morgan Fairchild, who is also there...yeah, that's the ticket!

T206DK
05-23-2010, 12:11 PM
you forgot about his wife, Morgan Fairchild, who is also there...yeah, that's the ticket!

I heard there was a bigfoot sighting at the field right before this very picture was taken. the cameraman was too slow and clumsy to reload fresh film and therefore only captured Jackson sliding, and not the Sasquatch :D

Peter_Spaeth
05-23-2010, 12:25 PM
If it was him, he was paid by gamblers to get caught stealing.

ChiefBenderForever
05-23-2010, 12:47 PM
What if he beat the tag and was safe?

sportscardtheory
05-23-2010, 03:19 PM
again, you will never prove that it is Jackson unless you find the photographer that took the picture or the original along with some sort of documentation saying it is Jackson. While intriguing, this thread will only serve to artificially jack the price up on yet another card. the player looks more like Lord than Jackson. This is wishfull thinking at best, and plays to the mindset of those that look for pots of gold at the ends of rainbows. Is that a UFO hovering in the sky outside the stadium in that picture above "Jacksons" head and to the left. Wow, this card has something for everyone. I think I see Jack the Ripper peering over the fence to look at Jackson's slide also. Unbelieveable ! what was he doing in America at this time

Can you be any more of a Debbie Downer. This is one of the more interesting threads I have read on here in awhile. No need to pee in everyone's Cheerios.

botn
05-23-2010, 03:33 PM
Can you be any more of a Debbie Downer. This is one of the more interesting threads I have read on here in awhile. No need to pee in everyone's Cheerios.

Agreed. Each post T206DK has made on this thread is filled with hostility. Why not find another sandbox to play in? Nobody here needs the chip on your shoulder.

HercDriver
05-23-2010, 04:18 PM
I was looking for pictures of Indian players with mullets until my wife pointed out that it was his collar...

Cheers,
Geno

SethY
05-23-2010, 04:24 PM
So what is the consensus on the "Baker gets his man" card?

fkw
05-23-2010, 05:59 PM
http://centuryoldcards.com/images/jacksonsliding.jpg

Bottom 2 are said to be Jackson.


Since he is not noted on the card, I dont think it makes much difference either way.

Rob D.
05-23-2010, 06:27 PM
again, you will never prove that it is Jackson unless you find the photographer that took the picture or the original along with some sort of documentation saying it is Jackson. While intriguing, this thread will only serve to artificially jack the price up on yet another card. the player looks more like Lord than Jackson. This is wishfull thinking at best, and plays to the mindset of those that look for pots of gold at the ends of rainbows. Is that a UFO hovering in the sky outside the stadium in that picture above "Jacksons" head and to the left. Wow, this card has something for everyone. I think I see Jack the Ripper peering over the fence to look at Jackson's slide also. Unbelieveable ! what was he doing in America at this time

Excellent points. Maybe someone will start another "I can't believe this card didn't grade higher" thread instead of an interesting one like this that's about, you know, an actual prewar card.

Peter_Spaeth
05-23-2010, 06:42 PM
I can't believe this card didn't grade higher.

Cat
05-23-2010, 06:50 PM
I'm only here because this keeps getting popped to the top and I can't avoid viewing train-wrecks. It looks like it could be Jackson to me but since I don't own the card and don't want to own a version of that card, I'm just trying to be objective, which, I guess, means my opinion is worthless.

teetwoohsix
05-23-2010, 07:06 PM
In Franks post, where he stacked the three photos on top of each other, and the two on the bottom said to be Jackson--I can see why the OP would believe the inner panel to be Jackson.To me, it does look like him.Also, in the stacked photos, there is a similarity in the way the player is sliding into the base.IMO.

Clayton

mark evans
05-23-2010, 07:14 PM
I think this thread is an example of the Board at its best. A fascinating question, implicating areas for research, and involving one of baseball's most controversial and collectible players on a vintage set, regardless whether or not the question can be definitively answered.

Peter_Spaeth
05-23-2010, 07:16 PM
In Franks post, where he stacked the three photos on top of each other, and the two on the bottom said to be Jackson--I can see why the OP would believe the inner panel to be Jackson.To me, it does look like him.Also, in the stacked photos, there is a similarity in the way the player is sliding into the base.IMO.

Clayton

I don't think anyone would dispute the resemblance. But in a situation such as this, where the photo was not identified as Jax when the card was issued, the proponent of the position has a very high burden of proof and as Mark and others have pointed out that burden cannot be satisfied on the basis of the tiny photo with the hair covered and the eyes obscured.

teetwoohsix
05-23-2010, 07:22 PM
I agree Peter,,,and I am the last person on this board to be indentifying players from photo's :o,,,,,,,I'll stick with tooling along on my T206 quest ;)

Clayton

bmarlowe1
05-23-2010, 07:41 PM
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by sportscardtheory http://www.net54baseball.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?p=811002#post811002)
Can you be any more of a Debbie Downer. This is one of the more interesting threads I have read on here in awhile. No need to pee in everyone's Cheerios.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
originally posted by botn
Agreed. Each post T206DK has made on this thread is filled with hostility. Why not find another sandbox to play in? Nobody here needs the chip on your shoulder.

----------------------------------------

I am firmly with TD206DK on this. There were a few interesting posts on this thread - but many of them were simply irrationally ludicrous and symptomatic of the problems that plague the hobby. You can find more than a few excellent recent threads on photo ident. - this is not one of them.

And no - I'm neither mad nor hostile. :)

David R
05-23-2010, 07:42 PM
I think it's Jackson. And thanks to the original poster for such a great topic. As usual, a few skunks showed up at the garden party to make things interesting.

bmarlowe1
05-23-2010, 07:49 PM
I think it's Jackson. And thanks to the original poster for such a great topic. As usual, a few skunks showed up at the garden party to make things interesting.

I guess that applies to me - so, David, exactly what is your point?

SethY
05-23-2010, 07:49 PM
I guess I'll be one of the first to say the "Baker gets his man" also depicts Jackson. It was brought up earlier in the thread but hasn't gotten as much attention. Anyone agree? It seems like a much clearer picture of the same player on Cleveland.

botn
05-23-2010, 07:58 PM
I am firmly with TD206DK on this. There were a few interesting posts on this thread - but many of them were simply irrationally ludicrous and symptomatic of the problems that plague the hobby. You can find more than a few excellent recent threads on photo ident. - this is not one of them.

And like anyone you are entitled to your opinion but a thread getting as many posts and views as this one has, would say otherwise. Not sure how you can categorize this thread as irrational and ludicrous when we are simply tossing about ideas about a photo. I certainly do not agree that this process is adding to what plagues the hobby. Maybe just a bit less drama from you, no?

sportscardtheory
05-23-2010, 08:01 PM
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by sportscardtheory http://www.net54baseball.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?p=811002#post811002)
Can you be any more of a Debbie Downer. This is one of the more interesting threads I have read on here in awhile. No need to pee in everyone's Cheerios.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
originally posted by botn
Agreed. Each post T206DK has made on this thread is filled with hostility. Why not find another sandbox to play in? Nobody here needs the chip on your shoulder.

----------------------------------------

I am firmly with TD206DK on this. There were a few interesting posts on this thread - but many of them were simply irrationally ludicrous and symptomatic of the problems that plague the hobby. You can find more than a few excellent recent threads on photo ident. - this is not one of them.

And no - I'm neither mad nor hostile. :)

So curiosity is a problem that plagues the hobby? Sorry, I don't get what you mean. Someone brought something up, and people are discussing it on a discussion board. What is ludicrous and symptomatic about discussing a curiosity.

botn
05-23-2010, 08:03 PM
sportscardtheory,

Guess you did not read the fine print. Only Mark can make any comments on photo id. The rest of have to sit back and be silent until he has spoken.

teetwoohsix
05-23-2010, 08:04 PM
I have not seen many posts in this thread pointing out why it is NOT Jackson-just curious to hear why it is not him? To me, I can see the similarities in those stacked photos-and I am as lousy as it gets in identifying mystery players............

Clayton

And no,,I am not one of the one's who ran out and bought this card ;)

bmarlowe1
05-23-2010, 08:14 PM
sportscardtheory,

Guess you did not read the fine print. Only Mark can make any comments on photo id. The rest of have to sit back and be silent until he has spoken.

BOTN - you jumped on TD206DK becaause he didn't agree with you. I've yet to see anything from you on this thread that makes any sense.

Can you explain exactly why you think that guy is Jackson? Would you pay a premium for that card?

bmarlowe1
05-23-2010, 08:19 PM
[quote=teetwoohsix;811132]I have not seen many posts in this thread pointing out why it is NOT Jackson-just curious to hear why it is not him? To me, I can see the similarities

Clayton

Clayton - you have things in reverse. You have to tell us why one should conclude that extremely blurry photo is Jackson. How is anyone supposed to show you that it's not Jackson when all we have is the vaguest impression of a face. We just can't know. No one has said this isn't Jackson.

What we do know is that the facial recogntion part of the brain is easily fooled. It doesn't matter if it "resembles" Jackson.

bmarlowe1
05-23-2010, 08:25 PM
[quote=sportscardtheory;What is ludicrous and symptomatic about discussing a curiosity.[/quote]

What is ludicrous is that this can have affect on the card's price (actually on that I don't really care). What is also ludicrous is the way you jumped on TD206DK because he strongly disagreed with you. He wasn't peeing on your cheerios - he was trying to say something rational. You actually didn't say anything substantive in response to his arguments.

teetwoohsix
05-23-2010, 08:28 PM
Hi Mark-

Well, I know this is your area of expertise, so I'm not going to begin to try to tell you why it's Jackson ;)

But, I do have to admit, this is a convincing one to me.......at the very least, a great topic !!!

Clayton

HercDriver
05-23-2010, 08:32 PM
Here's a picture of Cleveland's League Park. As you can see by the right field fence, it does indeed look like the picture was taken from the third base dugout. Along with the fact that Harry Lord was the Sox third baseman, maybe we can see who might have made it to third in any of those games. I know it's a long shot, but if somebody has access to box scores from 1911, here the days the Sox played in Cleveland:

May 3-6
June 28 - July 1 (doubleheader on 28th)
Sept 4 (doubleheader, although I'm not sure this was in Cleveland since they played the previous few games in Chicago - may be a mistake in my source)

Anyway, it might be worth a look...

Take Care,
Geno

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r181/HercDriver_photo/leaguepark.jpg

botn
05-23-2010, 08:35 PM
BOTN - you jumped on TD206DK becaause he didn't agree with you. I've yet to see anything from you on this thread that makes any sense.

Can you explain exactly why you think that guy is Jackson? Would you pay a premium for that card?

It is how he disagreed Sir Mark, not that he disagreed. None of my posts were drawing conclusions about the image. Since clear photo id cannot be made, I suggested seeing box scores which may reveal more information about the games played between these two teams. If my posts did not make any sense I would say you need to really start buying the magazines for the articles.

No idea if it is Shoeless and I would not pay a premium for it yet nor would I sell it for a premium yet. A bunch of us on a thread tossing about theories and thinking of ways of researching an image on 98 year old card is not going to result in someone paying $15,000 for a NM example. This process is not what is plaguing our hobby. It is exactly what has made the hobby so great.

HercDriver
05-23-2010, 08:35 PM
I meant to add another guess...purely conjecture. If you look at the position of the shortstop on the far right, it would lead one to believe that it is a "caught stealing" since the SS seems to be in postion instead of backing up, cutting off throws, or covering second. Again, totally a guess...but that makes it fun. So who has a box score of those games with a Caught Stealing stat?

Cheers,
Geno

botn
05-23-2010, 08:42 PM
Geno,

Pretty sure The Sporting News would list the CS stat as would the local Cleveland paper, The Cleveland Plain Dealer. The description on the back of the card is somewhat vague as to whether it was a caught stealing or an ordinary put out.

Greg

HercDriver
05-23-2010, 08:48 PM
Greg --

That's why I think the SS is the key to telling the difference. It's obviously not a force play, so the ball had to come from somewhere. If it was an outfielder making the play, the SS wouldn't be in that postition. If it was the infield, it might be the second baseman trying to make that play, but highly unlikely. The only infielder that would have a shot at third generally is the SS if the runner tries to advance on a ground ball to SS. However, in this picture, the SS is facing the pitcher/catcher. I think it's a steal attempt based on the SS's position. Just an educated guess...

Cheers,
Geno

HercDriver
05-23-2010, 08:51 PM
And if somebody is checking box scores...he may have been safe with an SB instead of a CS. Hard to tell...

Geno

bmarlowe1
05-23-2010, 08:54 PM
It is how he disagreed Sir Mark, not that he disagreed. None of my posts were drawing conclusions about the image.....No idea if it is Shoeless and I would not pay a premium for it yet nor would I sell it for a premium yet. A bunch of us on a thread tossing about theories and thinking of ways of researching an image on 98 year old card is not going to result in someone paying $15,000 for a NM example. This process is not what is plaguing our hobby. It is exactly what has made the hobby so great.

I'm glad to hear that officer BOTN of the "proper forum tone police" is on the beat. There is nothing wrong with what TD206DK said nor how he said it. In fact he did a pretty good job of containing himself.

Sorry if I mis-interpreted your position on JJ. The only way you're going to get an answer is to find the photo.

sportscardtheory
05-23-2010, 08:56 PM
Did any of his teammates have that white half-sock on their right leg that he seems to be wearing in all his photos and cards? If anyone can find photos from the other players in those years who it could be, it would be great. I think that in itself could weed out some doubt. There is only a few players it could be, and if none of them wore the white half-sock, what are the odds it's not him.

sportscardtheory
05-23-2010, 08:57 PM
What is ludicrous is that this can have affect on the card's price (actually on that I don't really care). What is also ludicrous is the way you jumped on TD206DK because he strongly disagreed with you. He wasn't peeing on your cheerios - he was trying to say something rational. You actually didn't say anything substantive in response to his arguments.

Him carrying-on about UFOs and chiding everyone simply because they are curious is SOOO substantive.

bmarlowe1
05-23-2010, 09:06 PM
sportscardtheory:
Did any of his teammates have that white half-sock on their right leg..

Yes - this was already addressed.

Matt
05-23-2010, 09:14 PM
here the days the Sox played in Cleveland:

May 3-6
June 28 - July 1 (doubleheader on 28th)
Sept 4 (doubleheader, although I'm not sure this was in Cleveland since they played the previous few games in Chicago - may be a mistake in my source)


May 3rd he went 3 for 5 with a double and a run scored.
May 4th he went 0 for 4.
May 5th he went 1 for 4 with a SB
May 6th he went 2 for 3 with a double and a sacrifice bunt before the game was called in the 8th so the Naps could catch a train.

The box scores do not mention any CS in any of the games.

bmarlowe1
05-23-2010, 09:15 PM
Him carrying-on about UFOs and chiding everyone simply because they are curious is SOOO substantive.

So, you agree that you didn't say anything substantive in response to him. I guess your argument is neither of you said anything substantive - is that right?

He actually typed in a whole paragraph that was pretty substantive. The substantive point is that the research so far done on this thread, while it was somewhat interesting at first, is headed for a dead end. You have to find the photo or at least a record of it.

I hope my tone is OK with you.

sportscardtheory
05-23-2010, 09:30 PM
So, you agree that you didn't say anything substantive in response to him. I guess your argument is neither of you said anything substantive - is that right?

He actually typed in a whole paragraph that was pretty substantive. The substantive point is that the research so far done on this thread, while it was somewhat interesting at first, is headed for a dead end. You have to find the photo or at least a record of it.

I hope my tone is OK with you.

Why are you so angry? lol Light some candles...take a bubble bath...listen to whale songs.

ChiefBenderForever
05-23-2010, 09:37 PM
If only a couple other teamates had the white ankle band doesn't that mean it is a 70% chance it is him, then add the other photo's shown and I think it is more like 90%. Better odds than a casino or getting a card graded right. I think it needs to be proved it isn't him as much as it is or else it is.

bmarlowe1
05-23-2010, 09:42 PM
Why are you so angry? lol Light some candles...take a bubble bath...listen to whale songs.

I'm not angry - you overlooked my :) on post #125. In fact, my Blackhawks are going to the finals - I couldn't be happier. Ask constable BOTN why he is soooo angry.

Cat
05-23-2010, 10:31 PM
never mind

<object classid='clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000' codebase='http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=7,0,19,0' width='296' height='50'><param name='movie' value="http://www.soundboard.com/sb/playerskins/singleTrackPlayer3.swf?trackURL=http://www.soundboard.com/mediafiles/NTY2ODUzNjQ1NjY4Njc_IXvMuPIGBDg.mp3&vol=70&action=start&title=Aggression&photo=http://www.soundboard.com/memberphoto/89115364891261.jpg"/><param name='quality' value='high' /><param name='wmode' value='transparent' /><embed wmode='transparent' src="http://www.soundboard.com/sb/playerskins/singleTrackPlayer3.swf?&trackURL=http://www.soundboard.com/mediafiles/NTY2ODUzNjQ1NjY4Njc_IXvMuPIGBDg.mp3&vol=70&action=start&title=Aggression&photo=http://www.soundboard.com/memberphoto/89115364891261.jpg" quality='high' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' width='296' height='50'></embed></object>

botn
05-23-2010, 10:38 PM
I'm glad to hear that officer BOTN of the "proper forum tone police" is on the beat. There is nothing wrong with what TD206DK said nor how he said it. In fact he did a pretty good job of containing himself.

Sorry if I mis-interpreted your position on JJ. The only way you're going to get an answer is to find the photo.

Well of course you would not find anything wrong with what T206DK wrote since you have posted with a similar attitude. No problem if you think this is a wild goose chase and you maybe right but to lecture us about how evil threads like this are is just absurd. You aren't really this arrogant in person are you?

And there was no way to misinterpret what I wrote on this thread if you actually took the time to read it so not sure what your motivation was to categorize my comments as not making any sense other than to make trouble.

I do agree with you that finding the source of the image would be more telling but I also find being able to read a play by play or detailed box scores could shed some light on this. This card is a long way from being documented as a Jackson card.

Sterling Sports Auctions
05-23-2010, 11:17 PM
First of all I have to say this has turned out to be a great thread until the alien arrived.

There has been a suggestion here that this was not known or thought of in the T202s. I have to disagree, I have seriously been collecting T202s for 10 years and from corresponding with fellow T202 collectors the subject had been brought up that one or more of the center panels might be Jackson.

Another confirmation that this might have been thought by some collecting T202s is the fact that I have found the card to always have commanded a slight premium for a common.

This is not the first example of information known in the hobby for years but if the right person puts out the possibility and gets a good response, than an explosion happens which happened here.

I do love the effort that has been put out to try and find out if the speculation is correct.

Lee

barrysloate
05-24-2010, 04:53 AM
Even if it turns out conclusively that it is not Jackson, I think this has been a terrific thread. We've examined every shred of evidence we can come up with, and of course it may lead us to say the original poster was wrong. But the process has been worthwhile, and least for me. I've read every post and agreed with some, questioned others. I know Mark approaches photo i.d. forensically but nobody else on the board has that skill, so we use the trial and error method. It still has been fun.

benjulmag
05-24-2010, 04:59 AM
Why must we assume that the center panel photos on T202's were 1911 images? I recognize that the issue was released in 1912, but why then must it follow that only 1911 images were used? For example, with T206's, hasn't it been recognized within the hobby that many of the photos from which the images were based were taken a good several years earlier? Why then couldn't the same apply with T202's?

EDITED to add that if one, by looking at changes in uniform styles, could establish that at least one center panel photo had to have been taken prior to 1911, that would seem to put into issue, absent other evidence, when any center panel photo was taken. Tim, in post #56, in fact does that opining that with this "Jackson T202", it had to predate 1911. So if not 1911, why then not, say, 1908 or 1909?

HercDriver
05-24-2010, 05:39 AM
I agree that there's no guarentee that it's a 1911 photo...but it's the best guess. I'd never buy the card just for the fact that it's a Shoeless Joe, but it's fun to try to prove/disprove it.

One other thing to help narrow down the box score is by looking for an Indian CS and a PO for Harry Lord. Thirdbaseman don't get many putouts, so if you had a Jackson (or somebody else) CS with a Lord PO (and a Sullivan assist), that might be a possibility...

Take Care,
Geno

T206DK
05-24-2010, 06:15 AM
Agreed. Each post T206DK has made on this thread is filled with hostility. Why not find another sandbox to play in? Nobody here needs the chip on your shoulder.

it seems as though my sarcasm has been lost on some who have read this thread. There's no one on this forum who would appreciate morethan me the fact that this T202 might turn out to have Joe Jackson in the picture, but I think it's a stretch to just come out and say it without being able to back it up with some real proof. BOTN if you think my posts on this thread were filled with hostility , then I'll just say you don't know me very well. I'm one of the most amiable collectors you'll ever meet more than likely.
I wasn't trying to demean the original poster either. It was a good topic to explore. there may be other pictures in this set that have guys that resemble Jackson in them as well. The theories proposed are interesting as well as the reactions of many of this posts readers. Too often card collecting has become a way to make a quick buck off of someone whether it's an honest buck or not is up to the seller. Had anyone tried to sell one of the T202's that flew off Ebay or off of Internet store fronts yesterday as a Jackson T202, we would all be talking about that now for sure. For those of you who don't like me knocking the investors/speculators and card flippers. you can just skip over my posts then. I won't stop talking about what I've seen the hobby degenerate into since the early 90's. It's just this type of person who would read a post such as this an then try to take advantage of unknowing buyers by trying to sell them a Jackson T202 for a massive premium. If you think it wouldn't happen you are naive. Check Ebay out any day of the week and you'll see some of the most ridiculous claims and listings. Each week there's new ones that top the previous weeks hilarity.
So Brett, let me say welcome to this board, and your post was a good one to start with !

T206DK
05-24-2010, 06:31 AM
Can you be any more of a Debbie Downer. This is one of the more interesting threads I have read on here in awhile. No need to pee in everyone's Cheerios.

Hmmm, I guess card collectors don't have much of a sense of humor then sportscardtheory. Sorry for mixing in a little here to make a point and peeing on everyone's fire who wants this to be Joe Jackson soooooo very badly. My brother just called me after reading this post and he says there could be more cards in the T202 set that could have resemblences of Jackson in them. He is hoping it turns out to be true so he can sell all 3 of his for inflated prices. How many others are out there waiting to do the same thing ? How many on this board went out and bought a T202 the day this thread was started ? Many of you don't realize how reactionary and opportunistic this hobby of ours has become sometimes. I don't mind pointing it out when I see it. If you are going to slam me and name call for it ....then so be it ! I will be the first to admit, I did not even look for T202's that were for sale after reading this thread. My brother , on the other hand is already on the Collectors universe boards trying to make deals with his buddies to buy more

brett
05-24-2010, 06:44 AM
.

brett
05-24-2010, 07:59 AM
Why must we assume that the center panel photos on T202's were 1911 images? I recognize that the issue was released in 1912, but why then must it follow that only 1911 images were used? For example, with T206's, hasn't it been recognized within the hobby that many of the photos from which the images were based were taken a good several years earlier? Why then couldn't the same apply with T202's?

You are correct. Some of the cards from this set have older pictures. For example, the Lajoie and some of the Birmingham cards show them wearing Cleveland uniforms from a few years earlier. However, this card is definitely from 1911 because 1911 was both Lord's first full season with Chicago and Shoeless Joe's first full season with Cleveland AND (coincidently) the year where he wore a white wrap on his right ankle as seen in this picture from that year...

Abravefan11
05-24-2010, 08:18 AM
Brett concerning the ankle wrap it's already been pointed out that several other players in the same photo are wearing one as well. As much as I would like for this to be some type of definitive proof that the T202 was Joe it's not.

brett
05-24-2010, 08:18 AM
First of all, thanks to everybody for the response to my first ever post! It means a lot because I've been a long-time admirer of this board and in my opinion it's the only intelligent place for discourse with the finest minds in the hobby. Here's why I'm now even more sure than before that it's Joe Jackson... First off, I have this entire set as well as other Shoeless Joe cards so it's not like I'm just being hopeful or trying to talk myself into believing it's him. The last few times I've looked closely at this set, every time I've gotten to that card I've instinctively stopped and said "Holy crap, that's Joe Jackson!". In fact, the other cards in this set that other people now think could also be him (Baker Gets His Man or Too Late For Devlin) I disagree with. The players in those pictures just don't look like Joe to me. Trust me though, when you look at this card IN PERSON it looks JUST LIKE HIM!... The picture isn't blurry at all and you get a very good look at his face. Simply put, it passes the eyeball test. I consider myself to have a tremendous knowledge of Cleveland baseball history as they are my all-time favorite team and I've looked at every Shoeless Joe picture from Cleveland so I'm very familiar with his facial features, build, etc. I obviously thought it was him when I first posted this, but since people started showing pictures of him from the SAME year wearing the SAME white ankle wrap on the SAME right ankle that he's wearing in the T202 picture I now think it's a slam-dunk (and nobody's going to convince me otherwise). He stole a lot of bases in his career but he also got thrown out alot which is another reason I think it makes sense that he would be trying to steal 3rd in the first place as well as possibly getting caught. Also, when you look at the 3 photos stacked on top of each other you see that he has the same exact sliding form with his left hand extended way out in all of them. Sure it's all deductive reasoning, but so is the existence of Dinosaurs.

The reason why I think it's taken so long for this to be discovered is (1) His name isn't mentioned on the card and the picture isn't right in your face making it obvious, (2) this set is much more obscure and rare than others of the era, and (3) too many people just see cards as currency now and don't take enough time to closely study and enjoy them.

Here are all the pictures including the entire 1911 Cleveland team with just 2 players wearing a wrap on only their right ankle (and the other guy looks nothing like the guy with the pointy chin and big ears (Joseph Jefferson Jackson) sliding on the T202 card)... Look at all the evidence, it's gotta be him!

Matt
05-24-2010, 08:31 AM
Saying the photo must be 1911 because Shoeless Joe is in it, is circular. Maybe it's 1909 and that is someone else.

brett
05-24-2010, 08:32 AM
Brett concerning the ankle wrap it's already been pointed out that several other players in the same photo are wearing one as well. As much as I would like for this to be some type of definitive proof that the T202 was Joe it's not.

It's not several, it's 3 out of 20+ players and none of the other guys look anything like the guy sliding on the T202 card like Joe Jackson does.

Orioles1954
05-24-2010, 08:33 AM
Brett,

As someone who works in the industry I certainly buy #1 and 3, but not #2.

James

brett
05-24-2010, 08:34 AM
Saying the photo must be 1911 because Shoeless Joe is in it, is circular. Maybe it's 1909 and that is someone else.

Wrong, because Harry Lord (the Chicago player on 3rd base) didn't play a full season in Chicago until 1911 after being traded from Boston and the only games he played against Cleveland in 1910 were in Chicago. This picture was taken in Cleveland meaning that it is DEFINITELY from 1911.

Leon
05-24-2010, 08:35 AM
Brett- I know you are new to the forum, and this was a great first endeavor, but please keep your thoughts in this one thread and don't start anymore about the same subject. It starts clogging the board up.....as we already have the poll about the card also. Thanks for your understanding.....take care

Matt
05-24-2010, 08:39 AM
nm

Abravefan11
05-24-2010, 08:39 AM
It's not several, it's 3 out of 20+ players and none of the other guys look anything like the guy sliding on the T202 card like Joe Jackson does.

It's 5 on the specific day of this photo but any player on the team could have worn the same wrap on any other day.

brett
05-24-2010, 08:54 AM
It's 5 on the specific day of this photo but any player on the team could have worn the same wrap on any other day.

True enough... but not any other player on the team could put on a wrap and start looking identical to Joe Jackson in the face.

T206Collector
05-24-2010, 09:18 AM
True enough... but not any other player on the team could put on a wrap and start looking identical to Joe Jackson in the face.

Based on the images that have been shown on this thread, and the running dialogue herein, I hardly think the conclusion that the T202 image looks "identical to Joe Jackson in the face" can be drawn.

I would love to believe that it is Shoeless Joe, but I am not convinced either way on it.

botn
05-24-2010, 09:21 AM
EDITED to add that if one, by looking at changes in uniform styles, could establish that at least one center panel photo had to have been taken prior to 1911, that would seem to put into issue, absent other evidence, when any center panel photo was taken. Tim, in post #56, in fact does that opining that with this "Jackson T202", it had to predate 1911. So if not 1911, why then not, say, 1908 or 1909?

Tim merely showed pics from the uniform database which showed that the uniforms from 1911 did not have the inner black collar. On post #64 I showed a picture of Jackson in his home uniform from a game in 1911 with an inner black collar, so the image of the sliding Cleveland player can still be from 1911. If it could be proved the image was from 1910 or earlier there is no way it is Shoeless on the T202. Shoeless joined the team for the last 20 games of the 1910 season and Cleveland did not host Chicago in the 20 game span.

brett
05-24-2010, 09:30 AM
Tim merely showed pics from the uniform database which showed that the uniforms from 1911 did not have the inner black collar. On post #64 I showed a picture of Jackson in his home uniform from a game in 1911 with an inner black collar, so the image of the sliding Cleveland player can still be from 1911. If it could be proved the image was from 1910 or earlier there is no way it is Shoeless on the T202. Shoeless joined the team for the last 20 games of the 1910 season and Cleveland did not host Chicago in the 20 game span.

It IS proven that the picture is from 1911. Forget about when Shoeless Joe played because Harry Lord (the Chicago 3rd baseman) didn't play a full season in Chicago until 1911 after being traded from Boston and the only games HE played against Cleveland in 1910 were in Chicago. This picture was taken in Cleveland meaning that it HAD TO BE from 1911. Another reason that it's more than likely Joe Jackson.

sportscardtheory
05-24-2010, 09:34 AM
It's 5 on the specific day of this photo but any player on the team could have worn the same wrap on any other day.

It's 3 players with the C on their uniform.

Edited - I see now. The photo extended further than I initially looked. I still only count 4.

benjulmag
05-24-2010, 09:44 AM
I'm assuming that the Boston road uniforms in that era do not resemble what Lord is wearing, correct? If incorrect, then we cannot rule out a year predating 1911.

Assuming Lord could not have been wearing such a uniform before 1911 (thereby dating the image to 1911), for those so inclined, there is more that can be done -- looking up newspaper accounts of the games to see if any make mention of plays at third involving Cleveland players. Such research in and of itself will not establish who the player is, but it can give more clues.

bmarlowe1
05-24-2010, 09:51 AM
posted by botn:
You aren't really this arrogant in person are you?

And there was no way to misinterpret what I wrote on this thread if you actually took the time to read it so not sure what your motivation was to categorize my comments as not making any sense other than to make trouble.

---------------------------------

The arrogance began with your comments directed at T206DK. He is neither diplomatic nor concise - but he was right. It nice enough for folks on the thread to encourage a new poster like Brett - but as can now be seen, with a little encouragement from some board members, he has totally gone off the rails of rationality. If you think that's an arrogant comment, I really don't care.

While Brett apparently does not know, many of us do know (and I believe that includes you) how often these cases of "resemblance" and "I'm sure it's him" turn out when we can get an answer.

The recent thread on "Dimaggio" is a perfect case in point - and that guy really did look like Dimaggio. http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=122231

botn
05-24-2010, 09:53 AM
I had already suggested in a much earlier post that play by play or detailed box scores might reveal more. Bob Lemke stated he has TSN which would cover games from 1911. I think going to the local paper, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, is going to prove to be the best source.

botn
05-24-2010, 09:56 AM
BOTN if you think my posts on this thread were filled with hostility , then I'll just say you don't know me very well. I'm one of the most amiable collectors you'll ever meet more than likely. I wasn't trying to demean the original poster either.
You are right I do not know you. I was not the only one, nor was I the first, to interpret your posts as being bitter.

Had anyone tried to sell one of the T202's that flew off Ebay or off of Internet store fronts yesterday as a Jackson T202, we would all be talking about that now for sure. For those of you who don't like me knocking the investors/speculators and card flippers. you can just skip over my posts then. I won't stop talking about what I've seen the hobby degenerate into since the early 90's. It's just this type of person who would read a post such as this an then try to take advantage of unknowing buyers by trying to sell them a Jackson T202 for a massive premium. If you think it wouldn't happen you are naive. Check Ebay out any day of the week and you'll see some of the most ridiculous claims and listings. Each week there's new ones that top the previous weeks hilarity.

I understand your point about opportunists but don't think what has been posted here is going to result in some innocent person being sold an example of this card as if it depicts Jackson. Going to take a lot more than a seller’s claim to change the minds of collectors on an issue as well established as a T202. It is not as if this is unique cabinet.

bmarlowe1
05-24-2010, 09:59 AM
I'm assuming that the Boston road uniforms in that era do not resemble what Lord is wearing, correct? If incorrect, then we cannot rule out a year predating 1911.

Assuming Lord could not have been wearing such a uniform before 1911 (thereby dating the image to 1911), for those so inclined, there is more that can be done -- looking up newspaper accounts of the games to see if any make mention of plays at third involving Cleveland players. Such research in and of itself will not establish who the player is, but it can give more clues.

Corey - the fielder's uniform appears consistent with the White Sox 1903 - 1912. It's definitely not Boston.

I agree with the comment on newspaper articles. The problem is that they may omit a play at third, so how can one know?

What is needed is to find that photo in a newspaper. Doing it with microfilm is not too bad a job, but doing it online if one has such access to Cleveland papers takes forever (I have tried similar quite few times).

Matt
05-24-2010, 10:04 AM
I had already suggested in a much earlier post that play by play or detailed box scores might reveal more. Bob Lemke stated he has TSN which would cover games from 1911. I think going to the local paper, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, is going to prove to be the best source.

I posted Joe's info from the May 3-6th homestand above; the paper did not say anything about CS.

botn
05-24-2010, 10:17 AM
The arrogance began with your comments directed at T206DK. He is neither diplomatic nor concise - but he was right. It nice enough for folks on the thread to encourage a new poster like Brett - but as can now be seen, with a little encouragement from some board members, he has totally gone off the rails of rationality. If you think that's an arrogant comment, I really don't care.

While Brett apparently does not know, many of us do know (and I believe that includes you) how often these cases of "resemblance" and "I'm sure it's him" turn out when we can get an answer.

The recent thread on "Dimaggio" is a perfect case in point - and that guy really did look like Dimaggio.

Which is why I have stated in every post that more research needs to be done (you know the ones which have not made any sense to you) and even then it may not be conclusive. I have no problem with people cautioning others or being skeptical but there are ways to do it that are more appropriate. Arrogance, and I was being kind when I used that word, is exemplified by your decree that it is threads like this that are destroying the hobby. That is utterly laughable.

Today Brett may have gotten ahead of himself but your denouncing of this thread happened prior to that. And Brett's enthusiasm over the card does not change the points which were made and the research which can still be done. His contribution simply had to be pointing out the card to us.

brett
05-24-2010, 10:21 AM
I'm assuming that the Boston road uniforms in that era do not resemble what Lord is wearing, correct? If incorrect, then we cannot rule out a year predating 1911.

Assuming Lord could not have been wearing such a uniform before 1911 (thereby dating the image to 1911), for those so inclined, there is more that can be done -- looking up newspaper accounts of the games to see if any make mention of plays at third involving Cleveland players. Such research in and of itself will not establish who the player is, but it can give more clues.

It's CLEARLY a Chicago uniform that Lord is wearing, and it's obviously in Cleveland so it's now been established that the picture is from 1911. There is a lot of evidence now that it's likely Shoeless Joe, and NO evidence that would indicate that it isn't.

botn
05-24-2010, 10:22 AM
Hi Matt,

There will be more detail in the local Cleveland paper and possibly TSN. I now have many of the box scores for games in 1911 Chi vs Cle but they came from the New York Times and omit a lot of detail, including the CS stat. I posted an example of one on Saturday.

Greg

Abravefan11
05-24-2010, 10:34 AM
There is a lot of evidence now that it's likely Shoeless Joe, and NO evidence that would indicate that it isn't.

Brett remember that I don't need to have any evidence to say that it's not Joe and you need something factual to say that it is. Right now even with all the things that point to it possibly being Joe you don't have anything definitive to say that it is. With that said I encourage you and everyone else to keep looking.

slidekellyslide
05-24-2010, 10:46 AM
Brett remember that I don't need to have any evidence to say that it's not Joe and you need something factual to say that it is. Right now even with all the things that point to it possibly being Joe you don't have anything definitive to say that it is. With that said I encourage you and everyone else to keep looking.

Exactly. It would be great if this turns out to be Jackson, but absent a corroborating photo from a newspaper or archive you just can't say with any certainty that it is Jackson.

Despite the minor blow ups this thread really is a great one and despite what others might say this really is good for the hobby to have these types of discussions.

brett
05-24-2010, 10:51 AM
By the way, it looks like Joe had the white wrap on his right ankle during most or all of the 1911 season. I've also included a closeup of his face from that same year and you'll see the same features as the guy sliding on the card. Also, click on the link below to see a high-resolution scan of the 1911 team and once again, you'll see that Jackson is the only guy who looks just like the guy pictured on the T202.

http://www.blackbetsy.com/imagefarm/addie-joss-day-panorama-6500.jpg

bmarlowe1
05-24-2010, 10:58 AM
posted by botn:
Today Brett may have gotten ahead of himself but your denouncing of this thread happened prior to that.

----------------------------

What Brett said today was very predictable and in line with a lot of the previous posts of some board members. It was easy to see where the thread was going, that's why I "denounced" it.

There have been a lot of excellent threads on this board with respect to photo ident. - I'll have to disagree with my friends Barry and Dan, I just don't think this is one of them (though it does have some entertainment value).

If one is seriously interested in what it takes to decipher photos like this, I would arrogantly suggest two articles by the late George Michael that appeared in The Baseball Research Journal a few years back. What should be obvious is that it is nearly impossible to get an answer on this photo - unless you actually find the photo.

Another good example is the Fed Lg photo that Rhys posted recently (the key to figuring out that one was the scoreboard info ).
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=121135
That was an excellent thread and great detective work by Rhys.

Another good one is http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=119887 started by abravefan who has managed to be both very right and very patient and diplomatic on this thread (I need to try that sometime).

These are probably too arrogant for botn, but others might enjoy:
http://tiny.cc/ka9n9 and
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=122362

brett
05-24-2010, 11:14 AM
Exactly. It would be great if this turns out to be Jackson, but absent a corroborating photo from a newspaper or archive you just can't say with any certainty that it is Jackson.

Dan, I understand what you're saying, but if I show you a photo of Barack Obama without a corroborating photo from a newspaper or archive does that mean you can't say without certainty that it's him? There have been many, many instances of newspapers and card companies misidentifying people throughout the years. Does that mean that just because they say it's somebody that it has to be true? Good luck finding the photographer or photo editor from 100 years ago. The same way that an old autograph or jersey is authenticated if everything about it looks consistent with it's day, everything about this card now points to it being Shoeless Joe Jackson... The photo is confirmed to be from 1911, Joe was known to have worn a right ankle wrap that year, he physically looks the same as every other photo that shows him sliding, and most importantly if you've seen enough pics of Shoeless Joe you would know by just looking at his face on that card (not on a low-resolution computer scan) that it's him. The world heard it here on the Net 54 Forum first! You are all very welcome, and if there's any sort of award that comes with this Leon can just accept it on my behalf and donate it to the HOF. ;)

T206DK
05-24-2010, 11:18 AM
You are right I do not know you. I was not the only one, nor was I the first, to interpret your posts as being bitter.



I understand your point about opportunists but don't think what has been posted here is going to result in some innocent person being sold an example of this card as if it depicts Jackson. Going to take a lot more than a seller’s claim to change the minds of collectors on an issue as well established as a T202. It is not as if this is unique cabinet.

actually, I can see this happening. I can see some unscrupulous dealer using the info gleaned from this post to further his point to try to convince a buyer. It may never happen, but it's very possible.

In looking at the close up photos and the extraneous pics the Brett has found. I think the player sliding actually looks a bit older than Jackson looks in some of the other shots where you can see his face. I've been trying to find some pictures of him wearing a leg wrap from his time in New Orleans, but haven't had any luck yet. A collector friend of mine who lives in New Orleans is going to ask around also. the resolution of the sliding players face is too poor and the brim of his cap covers to much of the upper part for me to say it's Jackson at all. Some facial features look the same, but they could be contorted because the guy is sliding hard into a base during a game.

barrysloate
05-24-2010, 11:21 AM
Mark- I still think this is a good thread because it has allowed collectors a chance to research a photo and share their findings. That's a lot more than what goes on in most threads around here. The fact that the research may lead to a dead end, or to an erroneous finding, doesn't mean it's not a good one. At least it has made some people think. What's wrong with that?

T206DK
05-24-2010, 11:25 AM
I don't know about any injuries Jackson may have had until about 1914, but I have also wondered if the wrap or sock he wears was to protect his leg against being hit by pitchers or from foul balls. here is an interesting link from SABR on Shoeless Joe http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=1715&pid=6843

slidekellyslide
05-24-2010, 11:31 AM
Mark- I still think this is a good thread because it has allowed collectors a chance to research a photo and share their findings. That's a lot more than what goes on in most threads around here. The fact that the research may lead to a dead end, or to an erroneous finding, doesn't mean it's not a good one. At least it has made some people think. What's wrong with that?

My thoughts exactly. I would actually think that Mark would love threads like this because it gives him an opportunity to educate and also a new subject for research. I do believe that Brett is jumping the gun here...there's probably enough evidence for a Texas district attorney that this is Jackson, but like I said before, absent an identifying photo from the photographer this will not be conclusive.

benjulmag
05-24-2010, 11:42 AM
It's CLEARLY a Chicago uniform that Lord is wearing, and it's obviously in Cleveland so it's now been established that the picture is from 1911. There is a lot of evidence now that it's likely Shoeless Joe, and NO evidence that would indicate that it isn't.


Brett,

That's not how photo ID works. The burden is not on me to prove it is not Joe Jackson. Rather, it's your burden to prove it is. Collectively the posts on this thread make a compelling case it might very well be Jackson. But can you PROVE no other Cleveland players that year did not wear a white ankle wrap, or did not have facial features that RESEMBLE Jackson's? In my experiences with photo ID, I can tell you there have been a number of instances such as this where people in the utmost of good faith thought an image depicted someone, only to subsequently learn it (almost certainly) did not.

Again, I'm not saying it is not Jackson. I'm only saying that without more we'll simply never know.

bmarlowe1
05-24-2010, 11:52 AM
Mark- I still think this is a good thread because it has allowed collectors a chance to research a photo and share their findings. That's a lot more than what goes on in most threads around here. The fact that the research may lead to a dead end, or to an erroneous finding, doesn't mean it's not a good one. At least it has made some people think. What's wrong with that?

Dan:
I would actually think that Mark would love threads like this because it gives him an opportunity to educate and also a new subject for research

------------------------------------------

Yeah - OK

orator1
05-24-2010, 12:15 PM
Here are close-ups of the four players wearing the white ankle wrap on the right ankle, compared to the player in question. A higher resolution scan of the card is needed for a better comparison. Then maybe players can be ruled out based on facial features.
Is there any significance that the first and fourth players appear to have caps where the "C" is faded and slightly off center? The 2nd and 3rd players appear to have darker caps with a whiter "C" that appears to be more centered, like the hat of the player in question.

Paul C.

T206DK
05-24-2010, 12:19 PM
hmmmm the blow up compared to the 4 pictures of the players looks kind like the first player.....even the ears kind of look similar. the resolution is not that good though

square5000
05-24-2010, 12:23 PM
I don't mean to be a killjoy in this really fascinating thread, especially with a post from a newbie, but could the sliding player be Bill Bradley?
I believe his last year with Cleveland was 1910, and Lord was with the Chisox during the last half of 1910. Couldn't the photo be from 1910 instead of 1911?
Plus, he has prominent ears and a thin face similar to the sliding player (and a similar appearance to Jackson.) But, I have no explanation for the ankle wrap :confused:

If it's Joe Jackson, that would be really awesome and a great find. As others have stated, we'll never know for sure until the original photo is found.
Again, this is a great thread! :)


Note: Photos from a thread on baseball-fever.com

Steve D
05-24-2010, 12:52 PM
I don't mean to be a killjoy in this really fascinating thread, especially with a post from a newbie, but could the sliding player be Bill Bradley?
I believe his last year with Cleveland was 1910, and Lord was with the Chisox during the last half of 1910. Couldn't the photo be from 1910 instead of 1911?
Plus, he has prominent ears and a thin face similar to the sliding player (and a similar appearance to Jackson.) But, I have no explanation for the ankle wrap :confused:

If it's Joe Jackson, that would be really awesome and a great find. As others have stated, we'll never know for sure until the original photo is found.
Again, this is a great thread! :)


Note: Photos from a thread on baseball-fever.com


I believe it's been determined that Lord joined Chicago late in the 1910 season, and only played 3-4 games against Cleveland, and all the games were in Chicago. Based on this, the photo must be from 1911.

Steve

bmarlowe1
05-24-2010, 01:31 PM
originally posted by brett:
The photo is confirmed to be from 1911, Joe was known to have worn a right ankle wrap that year, he physically looks the same as every other photo that shows him sliding, and most importantly if you've seen enough pics of Shoeless Joe you would know by just looking at his face on that card (not on a low-resolution computer scan) that it's him. The world heard it here on the Net 54 Forum first! You are all very welcome, and if there's any sort of award that comes with this Leon can just accept it on my behalf and donate it to the HOF. ;) <!-- / message --><!-- edit note -->


--------------------
Why not make a high res scan and post it?

Dan & Barry - it should be clear why I don't like this thread. If I'm arrogant, at least I have a track record of being right about some things sometimes. This guy doesn't have a clue and nothing anyone says is going to help. He still doesn't know what he doesn't know, and kindly reasoning will not change anything. If he wants to comprehend reality, he should try to get a copy of this card placed in JJ's file at HoF.

Peter_Spaeth
05-24-2010, 01:56 PM
Wishful thinking is not the same as fact. The photo is too grainy, and too little of his face is visible, to make a positive identification.

Ladder7
05-24-2010, 02:04 PM
Im gonna agree it's JJJ... As soon as I get one in my hands.

barrysloate
05-24-2010, 02:06 PM
Mark- I would like to see Brett a little more open-minded to other opinions. Let's see where this thread is at by post # 300.

Abravefan11
05-24-2010, 02:10 PM
Mark- I would like to see Brett a little more open-minded to other opinions. Let's see where this thread is at by post # 300.

Short of finding information on the original photo I think the debate will be just as contested at post #300 as it is now. There just isn't anything definitive to say it's Jackson and everything that has been put forward to this point, no matter how compelling, has just been speculation.

slidekellyslide
05-24-2010, 02:17 PM
Dan & Barry - it should be clear why I don't like this thread. If I'm arrogant, at least I have a track record of being right about some things sometimes. This guy doesn't have a clue and nothing anyone says is going to help. He still doesn't know what he doesn't know, and kindly reasoning will not change anything. If he wants to comprehend reality, he should try to get a copy of this card placed in JJ's file at HoF.

Mark, I don't think you're arrogant about it...I do think you come off as angry though when these threads pop up and I can understand that you don't like to see collectors be taken by misidentified photos, but IMO threads like these are educational. Even if some people can't be convinced it doesn't mean the thread isn't useful. A part of this hobby has always been speculation. It's fascinating to me what this thread did for a card that's been floating around the hobby for 100 years now as a "common." I certainly wouldn't be surprised if Brett has already stocked up on more than a few of these cards before posting this thread.

slidekellyslide
05-24-2010, 02:18 PM
Short of finding information on the original photo I think the debate will be just as contested at post #300 as it is now. There just isn't anything definitive to say it's Jackson and everything that has been put forward to this point, no matter how compelling, has just been speculation.

At this point it's circumstantial evidence with no smoking gun, but it is fun. :D

bmarlowe1
05-24-2010, 02:25 PM
Mark,......I certainly wouldn't be surprised if Brett has already stocked up on more than a few of these cards before posting this thread.

Now that is a rational explanation. In fact - it may be the best post on this thread.

Abravefan11
05-24-2010, 02:26 PM
Dan I agree completely. Even a road that leads to a dead end can be a fun ride.

sago
05-24-2010, 02:35 PM
http://www.blackbetsy.com/imagefarm/jj1913s1.jpg
Here's a photo of Joe sliding into third base in 1913.

I'm not familiar enough with him to know if his sliding style was unique, but it looks similar to the one in the T202 photo.

Peter_Spaeth
05-24-2010, 02:43 PM
Maybe someone should ask the Joe Jackson Museum what they think, or whoever maintains the Black Betsy website?

brett
05-24-2010, 02:53 PM
It's fascinating to me what this thread did for a card that's been floating around the hobby for 100 years now as a "common." I certainly wouldn't be surprised if Brett has already stocked up on more than a few of these cards before posting this thread.

Hahaha, I swear on my mother that I didn't start this thread for self-serving reasons. In the spirit of full disclosure I do have 2 of these. One of them is in my complete set and the other I have no plans to do anything with (I have a lot of doubles in this set).

brett
05-24-2010, 02:59 PM
Mark- I would like to see Brett a little more open-minded to other opinions. Let's see where this thread is at by post # 300.

Barry I have nothing but respect for you and everybody else on here. I respect everybody's right to an opinion (sort of like religion). If somebody believes the player on that card is Oscar Gamble I'm cool with it if it makes them happy. I just firmly believe that I'm right on this one and that we've discovered something special together. Not wishful thinking on my part, just combining my knowledge with other people's observations and it all seems to add up beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ladder7
05-24-2010, 03:00 PM
PM Sent to brett!

barrysloate
05-24-2010, 03:16 PM
Thanks Brett. I do understand that you feel virtually certain you are right, but not everyone is on board yet. Let's see how this goes.

benjulmag
05-24-2010, 03:17 PM
and it all seems to add up beyond a reasonable doubt.

I assume you're not a prosecuting attorney by trade?

brett
05-24-2010, 03:20 PM
I assume you're not a prosecuting attorney by trade?

Actually I'm a sports agent, but good guess on your part based off that last post. :D

slidekellyslide
05-24-2010, 03:22 PM
I assume you're not a prosecuting attorney by trade?

Hey! I already made that joke. :D

benjulmag
05-24-2010, 03:26 PM
Hey! I already made that joke. :D

Great minds think alike! :)

brett
05-24-2010, 03:27 PM
Here's ANOTHER thing to consider... an earlier poster showed closeup face pics of the 4 guys on the 1911 Naps team who wore ankle wraps on their right foot. Aside from the "C" on two of the guys' hats being faded (and I'm sure these guys didn't have access to numerous hats in a season like today's ballplayers), look at how Joe's sideburns are cut sharply at the top of his ears just like the guy in the sliding picture. GODDAMNIT IT'S GOTTA BE HIM!!!:D:D:D

sportscardtheory
05-24-2010, 03:38 PM
Here's ANOTHER thing to consider... an earlier poster showed closeup face pics of the 4 guys on the 1911 Naps team who wore ankle wraps on their right foot. Aside from the "C" on two of the guys' hats being faded (and I'm sure these guys didn't have access to numerous hats in a season like today's ballplayers), look at how Joe's sideburns are cut sharply at the top of his ears just like the guy in the sliding picture. GODDAMNIT IT'S GOTTA BE HIM!!!:D:D:D

It looks to me like it can only be the middle-right guy or SJJ. They are the only ones with "sunken" cheek-bones and Joe's go higher, like in the card. Plus as someone mentioned, Joe's C is more prominent on his cap.

Matt
05-24-2010, 03:40 PM
Brett - you're overboard on the foot wrap thing. To assume just because months later only 4 people are wearing foot wraps, why does that have any bearing on the game in question? Was it worn for style? To heal an ankle injury? Either way, knowing how superstituous baseball players are, maybe a guy in slump decided to wear one for a few games or whatever.
That is why for photo ID you look at unique facial features like the ears and the spacing of features on the face, as Mark has explained many times - those won't change 4 months later.

brett
05-24-2010, 04:01 PM
Brett - you're overboard on the foot wrap thing. To assume just because months later only 4 people are wearing foot wraps, why does that have any bearing on the game in question? Was it worn for style? To heal an ankle injury? Either way, knowing how superstituous baseball players are, maybe a guy in slump decided to wear one for a few games or whatever.
That is why for photo ID you look at unique facial features like the ears and the spacing of features on the face, as Mark has explained many times - those won't change 4 months later.
That's why first and foremost I always said that the facial resemblance is the main reason I believe it's him. All these other factors are just the icing on the cake. Look at the cheekbones, ears, lips, chin, etc... The picture is not that small and not that grainy where you can't get a good enough look and see that it's him. The ankle wrap is just all the more reason. If I had to bet all the money I have on whether it's him or not I'd bet that it is and I'd like my chances of winning.

bmarlowe1
05-24-2010, 04:18 PM
originally posted by Brett:
The picture is not that small and not that grainy where you can't get a good enough look and see that it's him.

-------------------

Yes, it is too small and too grainy. I'm being way too nice here, but all you can accurately say is that it can be JJ. That is all that anyone who does this seriously would accept.

Since you say you have 2 of them, I am wondering why you don't post a 600 dpi scan - and just crop out the face. If you don't know how, there are people that can help you. That may or may not help.

orator1
05-24-2010, 06:12 PM
Mark, based on the 4 close-ups of 1911 Naps players in post #219, can any of their facial features exclude them from being the player in question?

JasonL
05-24-2010, 06:38 PM
I am ready to say that it is reasonable to think that the sliding player on the T202 card is in fact a Cleveland player. But I think that is all we can know at this time.

Pup6913
05-24-2010, 06:53 PM
I guess everyone overlooked the white wrap on the other foot. Its as clear as can be in seeing the distinct outline of the shoe, white wrap, and then black sock.

It's not JJ.

sportscardtheory
05-24-2010, 07:02 PM
I guess everyone overlooked the white wrap on the other foot. Its as clear as can be in seeing the distinct outline of the shoe, white wrap, and then black sock.

It's not JJ.

Kind of hard to say that when his left leg is underneath his body completely out of sight.

bmarlowe1
05-24-2010, 08:21 PM
Mark, based on the 4 close-ups of 1911 Naps players in post #219, can any of their facial features exclude them from being the player in question?

Paul - they way I would like to put it is that I can't be sure who it is or isn't based on what has been posted and also the reproduction in Slocum's book.

sportscardtheory
05-24-2010, 09:17 PM
Paul - they way I would like to put it is that I can't be sure who it is or isn't based on what has been posted and also the reproduction in Slocum's book.

I know it's not your job to do so, but who is the player then, if it's not Joe Jackson? Who was it before it "became" Jackson?

Pup6913
05-24-2010, 09:25 PM
Kind of hard to say that when his left leg is underneath his body completely out of sight.

You must be blind or in denial with the others that are hyping the card. You can clearly see the shoe, white wrap and then the black top of the sock. The arrow points to where the wrap and sock meet.

tbob
05-24-2010, 09:25 PM
Did anyone else notice that in the Addy Joss panorama picture Jack Graney is pictured twice? :eek:

Matt
05-24-2010, 09:40 PM
Did anyone else notice that in the Addy Joss panorama picture Jack Graney is pictured twice? :eek:

From that to the collection of talent, to Cobb in a Cleveland uni, to the history surrounding it, it's a special photo. I created a wall display (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=116318) surrounding it.

sportscardtheory
05-24-2010, 11:41 PM
You must be blind or in denial with the others that are hyping the card. You can clearly see the shoe, white wrap and then the black top of the sock. The arrow points to where the wrap and sock meet.

I think you are seeing what you want to see. Look at post #209 in this thread. It's a clear as day example of a Jackson slide and his left leg is so far under his backside that it's not visibly there, just like the T202 card. You are seeing dusty air under his right leg. Who the heck slides with both feet extended. Answer, no one. I don't have a horse in this race. I don't have the card and don't plan on getting any.

brett
05-25-2010, 01:09 AM
I guess everyone overlooked the white wrap on the other foot. Its as clear as can be in seeing the distinct outline of the shoe, white wrap, and then black sock.

It's not JJ.

The other foot is behind a huge cloud of dust and you're not seeing anything clear whatsoever. Pay more attention to the features on the player's face and tell me who you think it is.

Cat
05-25-2010, 01:25 AM
While you guys have been arguing about the foot wrap, I just made three more deals over on the BST.

teetwoohsix
05-25-2010, 01:39 AM
I guess there is a rule that it has to be proven that it is JJ, and not the other way around. I didn't know about that, I thought more people would be able to explain why they didn't feel it was him. I think Andrew is the only one who gave a reason why he felt it wasn't JJ.

To me, I can see why Brett thinks this is Jackson, and from looking at all of the photos, comparing the slide, the uniform, the hat, the leg wrap, the facial features (what we can see from them)........I am becoming convinced (almost ;) ).

I understand whats coming next--it's all speculation without proof--I know guys. But can you all agree that you see what Brett is seeing? I can.

Clayton

Tcards-Please
05-25-2010, 02:16 AM
Clayton,

It may be difficult to PROVE, but based on the information that has been posted before (facial features, sliding style, hat, etc) I think it may be him as well. We have other people come on here and give their professional opinions on other cards from over 100 years old based deductive reasoning and common sense. No absolute proof at all and we take their word based on area of expertise and opinion.

r/
Frank

benjulmag
05-25-2010, 06:14 AM
I guess there is a rule that it has to be proven that it is JJ, and not the other way around. I didn't know about that, I thought more people would be able to explain why they didn't feel it was him. I think Andrew is the only one who gave a reason why he felt it wasn't JJ.

To me, I can see why Brett thinks this is Jackson, and from looking at all of the photos, comparing the slide, the uniform, the hat, the leg wrap, the facial features (what we can see from them)........I am becoming convinced (almost ;) ).

I understand whats coming next--it's all speculation without proof--I know guys. But can you all agree that you see what Brett is seeing? I can.

Clayton

I think we all have said we see what Brett is seeing. If we didn't we wouldn't be saying it could be JJ; we would be saying we don't think there is any chance it is him.

As to why it might not be him, the answer is simple. There is simply not enough detail to rule out other players who bear similar enough resemblance. In regard to ankle wraps, method of sliding, etc., again how can we know there aren't other players that wear ankle wraps or have similar sliding methods? Since all these players are on the same team, how do we know they don't have a trainer who encourages use of ankle wraps, or a coach who instructs his players to use a certain method of sliding? As Mark said, and I agree, no one who does photo ID in a serious way could at this point conclude beyond a reasonable doubt it must be Joe Jackson.

T206DK
05-25-2010, 06:29 AM
there is a slim chance that the player sliding in the picture has the same cheekbones structure and chin as Jackson does when relaxed. Look at the lines that run from his nose down the sides of his face to his chin. Jackson also had a sunken area under one of his eyes that to me makes it impossible for that face on the card to be him. Even if he was gritting his teeth while bearing down on the bag his face would not look as aged and old as it does in the T202 pic. The ears do not match up either, at least not the way I see them, so I don't know why that is still being argued. The player that is sliding is not Jackson, but is someone who could have looked similar in uniform and was older than he was ( my opinion). The white "sock" or wrap may have been a support for an injury, but I was also told last night that it could have been worn by the team captains or used in that manner. Can you see his left leg through the dirt....I can't tell, but it doen't really look like all dirt there. I think you can see some of his left leg and shin perhaps. Every player slides almost the same if they are going in feet first anyway, so for Brett to say that it is a "Jackson" slide is not right either. I slide that way playing softball , and I'm sure a lot of other guys know what I'm talking about. you put your target leg out, tuck your other leg under and trail one hand behind you. It's the way sliding is taught to 6 year olds. I think the fact that some on this board now want it to be Jackson so bad that they are not willing to "see" anything different.

Peter_Spaeth
05-25-2010, 07:15 AM
Jax hit .408 in 1911. If this is a 1912 issue, and the pic was Jax, wouldn't he likely have been identified as other middle photos of stars were identified?

sportscardtheory
05-25-2010, 07:48 AM
Jax hit .408 in 1911. If this is a 1912 issue, and the pic was Jax, wouldn't he likely have been identified as other middle photos of stars were identified?

The card wasn't about him though, it was about Lord getting his man.

botn
05-25-2010, 08:09 AM
Here is link to a an enormous high resolution scan of the Cleveland player.

www.botn.com/images/LordCatches.jpg

botn
05-25-2010, 10:27 AM
The Cleveland Public Library's Microfilm Department has been kind enough to save me a trip. They have provided me with coverage from all 11 games in which the White Sox played in Cleveland. I am reading the articles in chronological order. The headlines for the 2nd game they played (printed in the July 6, 1911 paper) reads "Yes, Joe Jackson Was Surely Out At 3rd Base", the image in the newspaper is at a later point in the slide but it made headlines. Here is a link to a larger version of the scan. www.botn.com/images/CPD050611.jpg

calvindog
05-25-2010, 10:30 AM
Jeepers, Greg, that's good detective work.

Jacklitsch
05-25-2010, 10:32 AM
WOW!!

Vindication.

Matt
05-25-2010, 10:47 AM
well done Greg!

whitehse
05-25-2010, 10:48 AM
I am actually amazed that this information was available!! Great detective work!

HercDriver
05-25-2010, 10:52 AM
Too bad his foot isn't wrapped...or is it?

Take Care,
Geno

yanks12025
05-25-2010, 11:04 AM
I don't think it is wrapped in the photo, just looks black. Also is it me or is it funny that the article talks about how Lajoie hit the ball to Tannehill who threw it to Lord to get Jackson, and both Tannehill and Lord are on the card.

botn
05-25-2010, 11:12 AM
Geno has a valid point.