View Full Version : Odd Vintage Shoeless Joe Jackson Card/Photo
Archive
12-05-2002, 03:49 PM
Posted By: <b>RobertS </b><p>What do you guys make of this item on eBay?<BR><BR><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1975455954&category=31719" target=_new>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1975455954&category=31719</a><BR><BR>Seler says he thinks it was a stadium give-away, perhaps from the 30s or 40s. However, that makes no sense on a post-ban Jackson. And it certainly doesn't look like a piece from the teens.<BR><BR>Collector's issue perhaps from the 60s, 70s or 80s?<BR><BR>Robert
Archive
12-05-2002, 04:26 PM
Posted By: <b>Todd (nolemmings)</b><p>Can't tell if its glued or inset to scalloped frame, but it definately is the same photo used on the Sporting News issues and their kin. Typeset for the name appears the same also. Photo seems too big for the sporting news issues, although it could be the scan or my poor sense of spatialization. <BR><BR>Reference to gloss also consistent with sporting news issues. Curious, what do you think disqualifies it from being a 1910s issue?<BR>Regards............Todd
Archive
12-05-2002, 04:42 PM
Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>I don't know why I think it looks newer...I know that's not a scientific response it just feels newer.<BR><BR>BYTW, it also reminds me of those Topps deckle-edge cards from the 1960s...and those always looked kind of ugly to me.<BR><BR>Just my feelings...<BR><BR>Was this pose also used for the B&W Jackson in the Chicago team set you often see reprinted?
Archive
12-05-2002, 04:45 PM
Posted By: <b>RobertS</b><p>I don't know why my name was stripped out...the system also didn't post at all the first time i clicked...
Archive
12-05-2002, 05:14 PM
Posted By: <b>Julie Vognar</b><p>the deckle edge doesn't seem to be part of the 1910s. The same photo was, of course, used legitimately in th4 Bf2 blanket (or triangle, to be precise). If it's not a legitimate copy (having no words on it), and it isn't a legitimate issue (ditto), then I guess it's a fake!
Archive
12-05-2002, 05:21 PM
Posted By: <b>David</b><p>Though they are obscure and mostly unctalogued, circa 1940s-60s, there were small photographs made by photographers like Jim Rowe. They were commercially issued, often sold mail-order perhaps in person. A photo of an early player, like Jackson, would have to be a second generation image and in some cases were photos of an old print or card. This might explain why to the seller this item has both the feel of a photo and appearance of a print (perhaps he can see the tiny dots in the photo) I have not seen such issues with deckle edges, but I wouldn't be surprised if they exist.<BR><BR>For these types of Rowe-like photos (not saying the auctioned item is one), which usually were of iffy image quality, it's a matter of how much one should bid. Obviously Joe Jackson is Joe Jackson, so any old item of his is worth a bid. To me, the current bid is getting high for my taste.
Archive
12-05-2002, 05:33 PM
Posted By: <b>David</b><p>To put the pricing in perspective, I had a 1950s Rowe Photo-card of Ty Cobb, with a nicer than usual image of Cobb at bat, grade Near Mint. The min bid of $9.99 was not met.