Thanks David & Matt. Don't forget that abravefan (Tim) discovered the photo that gave me 8 pages of material to write about.

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.

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.

Guys --

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

Peter Chao

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.

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

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.

You mad ?

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

If it was him, he was paid by gamblers to get caught stealing.

What if he beat the tag and was safe?

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.

I'm glad that's a collar...
 

I was looking for pictures of Indian players with mullets until my wife pointed out that it was his collar...

Cheers,
Geno

So what is the consensus on the "Baker gets his man" card?

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.

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.

I can't believe this card didn't grade higher.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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/...s/viewpost.gif
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. :)

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 ;)

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?

[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.

[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.

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

Box scores, anyone?
 

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/r...leaguepark.jpg

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.

Caught stealing
 

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

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

Caught stealing
 

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

Safe?
 

And if somebody is checking box scores...he may have been safe with an SB instead of a CS. Hard to tell...

Geno

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.

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.

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

sportscardtheory:
Did any of his teammates have that white half-sock on their right leg..

Yes - this was already addressed.

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.

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.

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.