Is Jackie Robinson in this photo?

[Chris Counts]

Hi, I'm trying to ID some players in this photo of what appears to be the UCLA football team from around 1939. That was the year Bob Waterfield, Jackie Robinson, Kenny Washington and Woody Stroude played together, and it looks possible that all are in this image. What do you think? Any and all feedback is very much appreciated. Thanks, Chris

[jason.1969]

Waterfield didn’t overlap with Jackie or the other players named. However, I do believe the photo has Kenny Washington and Woody Strode on the right. I don’t know that I see Jackie. If Jackie is there, it’s 1939. If he’s not there, it’s likely 1937 or 1938.


Jason
Twitter: @heavyj28

[Cliff Bowman]

On a side note, Woody Strode was awesome in Once Upon A Time In The West.

[Chris Counts]

If I recall, Woody gets gunned down at the railroad depot by Charles Bronson.

[rand1com]

No Robinson in that pic.

[Chris Counts]

No Robinson in that pic.

There was only one other African-American player on the team in 1939 besides Strode, Robinson and Washington (Ray Bartlett), at least from what I read, and he didn't start, unlike the other three. The photo seemingly shows the starting 11 offensive players for the Bruins. I couldn't find any information about other African-American players on the 1937 or 1938 teams, which must make this a 1939 photo. And that would seemingly make the player standing at the left either Robinson or Bartlett. It's too bad his face is hard to see clearly.

[Topnotchsy]

Here is a photo I have. It appears to be snapped a few seconds apart.

The date on the back is 12/15/1939 and the clipping indicates that Jackie is in the back left (farthest person from the front)

[Topnotchsy]

Here is a photo I have. It appears to be snapped a few seconds apart.

The date on the back is 12/15/1939 and the clipping indicates that Jackie is in the back left (farthest person from the front)

Here is the back

[Chris Counts]

That's awesome Jeff! It just made sense to me that he was there. I really appreciate your help.

[D. Bergin]

Fantastic work! Wish Jackie was a little more visible, but still an amazing piece.

[Steve D]

Deleted

[Topnotchsy]

That's awesome Jeff! It just made sense to me that he was there. I really appreciate your help.

My pleasure. It's rare to realize that something randomly in my collection could help provide information and even a date to something posted here.

[Chris Counts]

Now comes the next challenge ... when was the photo printed? I can tell it's old, but whether it was printed in 1939 or 1969, I have no idea. There's nothing on the back. Is it worth sending it in to PSA to find out? Or are photos with blank backs not worth the trouble?

[Topnotchsy]

Now comes the next challenge ... when was the photo printed? I can tell it's old, but whether it was printed in 1939 or 1969, I have no idea. There's nothing on the back. Is it worth sending it in to PSA to find out? Or are photos with blank backs not worth the trouble?

Maybe post a picture of the back to get feedback. I'm not an expert, but know there are others that are much more knowledgeable. (There are also groups on Facebook dedicated to photo collecting and there may be people there who can help.)

[Exhibitman]

I have nothing of substance to contribute, just wanted to compliment everyone on this thread. It is an example of what makes the board worthwhile.

[Chris Counts]

I agree Adam, it's threads like these that make this site so special — just when you think you've seen everything, there's always something amazing lurking around the next corner, and somebody willing to share valuable information about it.

Here's the back of the photo ...

[D. Bergin]

What's the exact size?

Looks like it might be a good candidate for a "Type 1" designation. Looks like it was taken at the same photo session as the press photo shown above, but just not an example used for publication.

[Chris Counts]

What's the exact size?

Looks like it might be a good candidate for a "Type 1" designation. Looks like it was taken at the same photo session as the press photo shown above, but just not an example used for publication.

It's just a hair short of 8 inches tall, and slightly over 10 inches wide.