Nice additional work Rob. I appreciate the help I've gotten from you and everyone else throughout this post. Because of our collective effort I can now tell people with 100% certainty that I'm the guy who discovered what is now known as a "new" Shoeless Joe Jackson card... and that 's pretty cool. Thanks.

If you discovered some modesty, that would be pretty cool too.

Wait, what???

I'm sorry if I'm not understanding this correctly and it was explained earlier in the thread. I just glanced at the last few posts to see why the hell it was bumped to the top of the board again.

So, what does that newspaper photo have to do with the image on the T202??? It's clearly not the same photo (if this was already pointed out I apologize) and it's not evidence of anything other than Joe Jackson actually wore a proper Cleveland uniform. How does the newspaper fit in as a piece of "evidence" for this "discovery" that was worthy of over 600 posts?

-Ryan

I'll take a stab
 

Ryan, these are the arguments:

1. The T202 shows Lord of Chicago tagging a Cleveland player at a game played in Cleveland. Harry Lord did not play for the ChiSox in Cleveland until 1911. Thus the t202 card shows game action from 1911.

2. The photo is from a 1911 game at Cleveland against the White Sox in which Harry Lord was the third baseman for Chicago, and Jackson was tagged out at third. The accompanying story confirms that Joe Jackson was the only Clevelander to be retired at 3b that day.

3. The photo and the card image were taken at the same stadium, and the angle of the two photos was very similar--not unusual given where photogs were allowed to position themselves in foul territory.

4. There are remarkable similarities in at least the fielder's uniform and the characteristics of the base to suggest that these photos were taken moments apart.

5. JoeJax was one of only a few Indians (apparently) to wear that white half-sock in 1911.


To be more certain, we could analyze the other ten games played between these two teams in Cleveland that year, to see if other Indians were retired in a tag play at third with Harry Lord manning the base. The play does not appear to be a caught stealing, given the position of Lord's feet to the runner and base, so we are left with a throw from an infielder or outfielder to 3b. That is not a common play, but not freakishly rare either. Then, if such other tag plays occurred, there might be the matter of the sock too, although I suppose any player could have been wearing that type of sock on that particular day for whatever reason. Still, from what's been provided so far, it seems more likely than not that the t202 shows Joe.

Glancing at the last few posts on a 600 plus post is a very reasonable approach to getting an understanding the content of a thread. In fact I do the same thing when I pick up a novel to read. I just go to the last page. Boy does that save time and I can read a few dozen a day.

I don't want to make you any angrier than you already are, though I am not entirely sure that is possible, but the last part of this thread was discussing a second T202 which may contain an image of Jackson. So this thread contains 2 different newspaper photos and 2 different T202s. Maybe once you get your blood pressure down you can identify the card and newspaper image to which you are referring.

It was mentioned early in this thread that several collectors had believed for years that the 202 contained a photo of Jackson.. so discovered is a bad choice of words :eek:
Shined a light on it would probably be more appropriate! ;)

Marty, all I know is that until this post was started nobody openly mentioned it as Shoeless Joe on the internet, in print, or anywhere else and now that's all changed. To those who say I'm immodest or errogant... all I can say is that I'm very proud to make a contribution to the hobby I love and maybe I've been a little over-exuberant about it.:o

Brett, ya done good ... now stop tootin' your own horn. :D:D:D

I agree, 100% !!!

Jim,

Just maybe we should do a poll, eh???

Brett,
I think you definately have opened a window.. good job.

The White Sox played at Cleveland 11 times throughout the year. Because a photo was found from ONE game that sort of resembles the play seen on the card, which is gneric because all it shows is someone sliding into third, and in my opinion the aggressive slide Jackson is making in the newspaper photo is far different from the casual looking slide on the T202, that does not mean that this photo came from that game. There were 10 other games in which a player could have been out at third. To me, the newspaper photo in no way resembles the T202 photo.

Wanted to add: thinking about it logically. If the newspaper headline from the day that photo was supposedly taken names Joe Jackson, who hit 408 in 1911, wouldn't it be logical that if it was in fact Jackson from that play and game in particular, he would then be named on the T202 as the sliding player? If it were a star, wouldn't he be named? I highly doubt if Honus Wagner or Nap Lajoie were depicted in a center panel that they would simply be reported as "the runner."

This is an interesting point.

By 1911 only 16 players had ever hit 400. Jackson and Cobb both did it that year. I know it was Jackson's first full season, but these cards were obviously produced after the 1911 season and he had just become an elite 400 hitter. If he were on a center panel, he would have been named. Cobb appears on 2 center panels and he is named on both of them.

While you have a point, wading through all the chest thumping and 'oh, look at me' drivel that makes up half the thread, is it any wonder that people might just give up and ask for a summary?

For reasons unknown to most, except Ted Z, Jackson did not appear on many of the T card issues whereas Cobb did.

Yes but if he were to be pictured on the front of one I don't understand how he wouldn't be identified. He was a star. He'd just finished second to Cobb for the batting title. I can't see any scenario in which if his image were to appear on a card he would simply be noted as "the runner." Like I said, if Wagner were to appear in a picture on a center panel I highly doubt he wouldn't be identified.

People are claiming this photo was taken the same day as the newspaper photo posted earlier. The newspaper made it a point to identify Jackson in what was I guess a crucial play of the game. If the photo on the T202 was taken that day and during that same play, why would Jackson not be identified?

The player's permission is needed in order for a company to promote their product, nationally. That involves contracts and compensation. Neither of which are required when appearing in your team's local newspaper.

In view of later history, maybe "Shined a black light on it . . . ."

Packs,
 

While your point is relevant, it's hardly dispositive. If Joe was such a rising star incapable of omission, why does he have no t202 side panel of his own?
Also, it is remarkably coincidental that the players on the side panels of the card in question were Lord and Tannehill, the two players involved in the play cited in the newspaper photo.

Your hypothetical is interesting, though, insofar as it mentions Wagner. I would suggest that no, they wouldn't necessarily identify Wagner if he was the one sliding. As we know, the ATC did not have Wagner's permission to use his likeness and/or such permission was withdrawn. It may very well be that they did not have Shoeless' permission either. The use of a generic action photo that does not claim to be him by name would likely not be considered an improper use, and the newspaper's identification of him by name is of course a permissible use.


I just noticed that Greg mentioned the same thing about use of a player's image. That may have alot to do with the caption making no mention of the runner's name.

Because he didn't have a T205. Since the side panels share images with that former set he could not be included on the side panel as was not in the T205 set.

well
 

that is not entirely true. Walter Blair and Joe Wood are found in t202 and not t205. It could be argued that If Shoeless was so important, he would and could have merited his own side panel.

At least one of the photos in the T202 set was taken by Conlon. When his photos are re-printed the player's rights aren't bought to re-print the photo. The photographer's rights are. So if this were simply a photo of Jackson, and not a "card" of Jackson's, which would mean adding him to a side panel and making him a part of the set, then why would they have to buy the rights to use his name as an identifier for who appears in a photo?

I'm not saying Jackson wasn't a part of the T202 set because he wasn't a star, and I'm not disputing the fact that he most likely didn't sell the rights to his image for inclusion in a set. But I'm not so sure you would need his permission to list him as appearing in a photo. Unless of course, he doesn't appear in the photo.

For example, Harry Davis is pictured shaking hands with John McGraw in a center panel and is identified. However, he does not appear in the set. Are you saying they had to buy Davis' rights to identify him in a photo and then didn't print a card of his as well? Seems highly unlikely. The only logical conclusion in my mind is that the card does not depict Jackson.

Todd I apologize as I missed the inclusion of those two. That makes the case for Joe much more fascinating in this issue. Other players are not included on the side panels however they are mentioned by name in the center panel descriptions. This set, Joe's images, and his lack of mention are an enigma.

No, they already would have had the rights to/ permission of Harry Davis--he was in t206, as were Birdie Cree and Billy Sullivan, two others identified in the back caption but missing from the end panels. Joe Jackson, by contrast, does not appear to have ever lent his permission to ATC.

I do not follow your Conlon analogy. Conlon also took virtually all of the portrait shots used in the E254 Colgan set. Are you suggesting that Colgan needed only to buy Conlon's permission to crop and use these photos, and not the players? I very much doubt that.

I have a question. The Fatima T200 cards were produced in the same factory, Factory 25 District 2 VA as the T206 cards and Jackson appears and is identified in the team photo. Did the same company that owned the rights to the T206, T205 and T202 sets also have the rights for the T200 set?

The T200 set was produced after the ATC break and at that time Fatima was a Liggett & Myers product.

Prior to that I believe all of the others were ATC issues. The more knowledgeable experts will correct me if I'm wrong.

then again
 

There may also be a more simple explanation as to why Joe (if it is him) is not identified in the photo. The caption was focused on Lord, with the write-up on him and his history. Although the text might have been added in late 1911, the photo may have been selected for inclusion much earlier--we know that most of the photos for end panels were around in 1910 or earlier. If the center photo were picked at a time when Joe Jackson was still a relative unknown quantity--say the first month of his first full season in 1911, which incidentally, is when the game was played that is included in the newpaper, there would be even less reason to identify Jackson. It is possible that there was no notation of who the runner was, and that when the text was finalized later, no one bothered to identify him.

My argument against that would be that the photo Greg found that matches the center panel is from a game in July. By that time Joe wasn't an unknown and center panel photos are included in the set up to the World Series that year. It makes no sense to me not to mention Joe unless it was a contractual situation. I find it hard to believe that the photographer would have marked his notes as the photo taken being of Lord and not also included Joe Jackson.

Tim
 

The game in the photo that identifies Jackson was from May 5, 1911. The teams played 4 games around then, 4 at the end of June (into July 1) and 4 in September. Unless it came from the last four game set, the photo was taken before half-way through Joe's first season. Now if they waited until year end to go through all sorts of photos, then I see your point. But if they already had decided on Lord and that photo earlier, I can see where the captioner would not necessarily have had reason to go back and check on the identity of the baserunner.

EDITED TO CHANGE: the September series was only three games, not four

We may be talking about two different photos and center panels. I was referencing the photo that started this thread. Greg found the companion photo for "Lord Catches His Man" in a newspaper photo from July.

I don't think so, but
 

I see the confusion, as it appears Greg was mistaken, either that or retrosheet is in error. In post 243 Greg says he got the photo from the July 6, 1911 paper, but that must be a typo--he surely meant May 6. If you blow up the story that appears with the photo, you see how ChiSox pitcher Frank Lange baffled the Indians in that game, beating them 2-1. That matches with the retrosheet site for the game played May 5th-- the Indians 20th game of the season.
http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1911/VCLE01911.htm

It is not July 6 but May 6 issue of the Cleveland Plains Dealer. Sorry guys...

Just remember
 

Only Teddy Z actually saw these players play in person :D

And Barry!

There are a lot of ways to make yourself believe it is Joe Jackson, but the logical conclusion to draw is that it is not.

I don't even think that newspaper photo resembles the T202 in the slightest. In that newspaper photo it appears as though Joe is making an aggressive slide into third. The T202 photo couldn't appear more casual.

Sorry to disagree. I truly have no dog in the fight, and could not care less if it is or is not Joe Jackson. You, on the other hand, appear to be the perpetual skeptic--i.e., you are finding whatever you can to make yourself believe it is not Joe Jackson.

Please explain how your conclusion is any more "logical" than those who claim it is JoeJax. And please outline your qualifications to state that the photo and the image in t202 do not resemble each other "in the slightest", when many, many others here would say otherwise. Yours is an opinon that appears to be no more qualified and perhaps less so than others. You are welcome to it, of course, but to intone that others are being fanciful in theirs and are being "illogical" smacks of condescension to me.

The photo posted has similarities, it's a Cleveland player in a Cleveland uniform being tagged out by Harry Lord at third base. So all the parralells made between it and the T202 boil down to a player in a Cleveland uniform sliding in on Harry Lord. Any photo of a Cleveland player sliding feet first into third and obscured by a 100 year old not very clear newspaper image is going to appear similar. You can't see Jackson's face in the newspaper image, so what leads you to believe it has anything to do with the T202 image? All points of reference when comparing the two boil down to uniform match ups, but those points of reference are going to be there for any photo of any player in the uniform.

What you can see in the newspaper image is that Jackson has thrown his hands up near his head, which to me suggests a pretty hard slide. What about the T202 photo would lead you to believe that the card features Jackson in a position mili-seconds before the one he ends up in on the newspaper? To me there is nothing to suggest it. The sliding player on the T202 appears to me to be casually sliding into third for an out. In the newspaper photo, Jackson looks like he was trying to make a play at third, not sliding in to be called out.

Speaking about logistics. Any way you slice it, there is always going to be a greater probability that any one person doesn't appear in an unidentified photo when there are an overwhelming amount of other people it COULD be. So speaking purely in numbers, there is a greater chance it is not Jackson than it is. That is why it is logical to assume it is not Jackson. It has nothing to do with intelligence and I'm not claiming I know the answer, but looking at the scenario logically, I don't see how you could find it is Jackson other than wanting it to be.

Also, if it were Jackson and the set owners wanted to feature Jackson on a card, why would they choose to and not identify him? Because they don't have his rights and this is a way to slip past that. I can buy that. But the set also doesn't feature Wagner, probably due to rights, and if they wanted to I highly doubt they would print a photo of him and just label him as a "player" or "runner." It was suggested that the photos were chosen earlier in the season before Jackson was a star, but I don't think that is the case because the photos go all the way up to the World Series. So, you have an elite hitter who is bursting onto the baseball scene and has just given the great Cobb a run for his money for batting title, but the photographer fails to label the photo as being of Jackson and you slip his image into your set anonymously? Why? If this set were produced today and Pujols were to appear in a center panel but not license himself for an individual panel, do you think he would just be a "runner" or would he be Albert Pujols? Or would he just not appear in the set?

There are astonishing similarities between the photos. To my mind it is highly unlikely they are not of the same play.

Packs said: All points of reference when comparing the two boil down to uniform match ups, but those points of reference are going to be there for any photo of any player in the uniform.

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

No - the very jagged right leg pinstripe (due to wrinles in the pant-leg material) of the 3rd baseman on the card and the newpaper photo match perfectly - thats pretty close to proof.

If you disagree - then your challenge is to find two photos of different crouched players with jagged pant-leg pin stipes that match as these do.

It's proof that whenever Harry Lord is wearing his uniform and bends down the pinstripes on his uniform react accordingly. I'm having trouble seeing how they would ever react differently. They're on the uniform. What distinguishes his crouch so much so that you can definitively say that the newspaper photo could have not been taken any other day than the same day and play as the T202 photo? I don't see it.

In the T202 the Cleveland player's right arm is at his waist. In the newspaper photo, Jackson's right arm is at his forehead. In both photos he has yet to reach the bag. So how did he get his hand from his waist to his head so fast? These photos would have had to have been snapped in direct succession for them to be the same play. But the positioning of the right arms suggests otherwise.

Packs,

Really. Truly. You do yourself a tremendous disservice when you start to argue photo analysis and identification with Mark. Please stop.

Sorry. I'm just offering my opinion. We're talking about a pretty unclear photo. I'm also not doubting his credibility at all.

As I said - try it. Get yourself some old style wool flannel baseball pants with a distinct pinstripe down the side. Crouch down and have someone take a photo. Then play catch for a while, run around, etc. Put the pants on again the next day - crouch down and take another photo. I don't think you will get the exact same pinstripe pattern as we get in the 2 images under discussion. Like any good rational argument, my assertion is stated in a manner that can be shown to be wrong if it is wrong.

>>>So how did he get his hand from his waist to his head so fast?

That has been asked and answered. Why are you saying it's too fast - I don't think it is.

Yes, I previously had that same question, and that was my one reservation, but the other evidence is so powerful that I guess one has to accept that it just doesn't take that long and that it could be explained by slightly different timing on the two photos.

All I'm saying is this. If that is a photo of Jackson on the T202, then to me it would have to be a totally different play than the one captured on the front of the newspaper. I just can't conceive how he would go from the position he's in on the T202 to the one on the front of the newspaper in just mili-seconds and in one fluid movement. To me, and this is my opinion, these are two different photos of either two different players OR the same player on different plays. Maybe it's theoretically possible for him to move his hand to his forehead, but where do you see that kind of momentum in the T202 photo? You're speculating that he COULD do it, but what about the T202 photo suggests he WOULD end up in the position he does on the newspaper? In the T202 photo the player's foot has just hit the ground and is beginning to spray up the dirt. In the newspaper photo Jackson's foot is way off the ground. If these photos were taken consecutively, then why is there no dirt thrown up in the newspaper photo? The only dirt being thrown up in the newspaper photo appears to be from his upper body. For a person's hand to go from their waist to their head in consecutive frames, there would need to be some sort of middle ground. His arm would already need to be rising or be near his head at the time of the slide. I'm no expert, but I just don't see how the player's hand could go from waist to head in consecutive frames or any indication that the player is raising his arm in the T202 photo.

As for the pinstripes, you're an expert and I value your opinion. The only thing I'm going to say is that these men are professionals. They would have practiced technique daily for hours and hours until every play became a sort of routine. Unless they make a dramatic change, a player is always going to look the same at bat or during a pitch, or turning a double play. It's been rooted in them through repetition. I'm just putting it out there, but there's a good chance Lord held the bag down in a similar position every time. That could just be his stance when the bag is being challenged. Maybe in these two instances he is in that routine and this is an example of lightning striking twice.

I guess I would disagree with you on what those pictures show, and how they could have been taken moments apart.

More importantly, I also do not agree that these plays are so routine the players will always look the same. The play in the photo was unusual--a tag play at third. Even more odd is that Joe Jackson appears to have made a bonehead play--trying to advance to third on a ball hit to shortstop. Lord's feet and body are positioned for a throw from shortstop with a straddle for tagging purposes--not a throw from second base, first base, outfield or anywhere else, and not with feet postioned for a force play. This play simply does not happen that often, and I doubt that there was a "routine" way to receive such a throw that it would look the same every time, down to the wrinkles in the uniform.

Hopefully we can eventually pull play by play or other newspaper accounts to see if this tag play happened in any of the other games played by these two teams in Cleveland that season. I note that in the box score for the 5/6 game, Harry Lord was credited with 0 putouts, so we can eliminate that game as a source for the t202 card image as well.

As to the slider's arm and hand movement - try to think about it this way. Let's say the runner was running 18 mph (a ballpark figure - close enough). During the slide he is decellerating - so he is moving at less than his running speed - less than 18 mph. It appears that from the earlier in time photo (the card) to the later in time photo (in the newspaper) he has moved a foot or two closer to 3rd base. So - in that amount of time could a human move his hand from his waist to his face? How fast would his hand have to move? Actually not that fast - his hand would have to move at very roughly the same speed as his feet. Seems pretty easy to me.

I"m not doubting the ability or possibility to move your hand, I'm doubting that the body language of the player in the T202 photo suggests the outcome shown in the newspaper photo. I know your reputation for photo identification and I don't mean to question or challenge your ability or put down the opinions of others. I just want to make that clear. All I'm trying to do is put my opinions out there and talk about what I see.

All of the body parts that change position on both Lord and Joe move proportionally from one photo to the next. All of the body parts that remain relatively stationary are in the same position in both photos. Importantly there is not an indicator that I believe you can point to from one photo to the next that is far enough out of context to discredit the stance that both photos were taken of the same play.