This was an excellent thread until the condescension, arrogance, and name calling began...ala Marshall Barkman.

The only question now is ... who is going to to be bigger man and stop the back and forth bickering?

Nah, you're right man... I am a d****** and an as*****. Sorry for letting our emotions get the best of us. Friends?

yeppers
 

As is board customary this is a request I agree with. Anyone can stay mostly anonymous on the board if their posts are not provocative, heated, or highly debated. This thread pretty much fits all of those categories..This is not personal it's the same rules for anyone and everyone.


Brett- email me or PM me for full name if wanted....

Sportscardtheory- banned

Brett
 

Brett- apology accepted

I'm the bigger man! Just kidding... Stepping back from this I can see how you and others would feel the way you do and I apologize. Hopefully you'll remember my first post as a good one and not focus on the shenanigans that started between myself and a few others.

Actually
 

The only question remaining is what is my PSA 4 worth? :D:D

Sportscardtheory
 

Sportscardtheory said he doesn't want his name on the internet as I posted. He said to delete his account so he is the one that made the choice. I took it down and he is now banned. regards

Brett, no worries.

Thanks Leon.

Cool.

Yes, it's an amazing film (and stage play) and it helped shape my approach to solving business management problems as a leader. If anyone reading this hasn't seen "12 ANGRY MEN", please do so...but here's the gist of it (spoiler alert!).

Fonda didn't start off by declaring he had solved the case; rather, he said he wasn't sure and asked for discussion. He guided others to consider the individual pieces of evidence and their minds gradually opened to the possibility of innocence. As the courtroom evidence was systematically discredited, even the cool Mr. Fonda became more passionate in pleading for his point of view...but he alone wasn't able to change the views of the last reasonable holdout (E.G. Marshall) and the bigot (Lee J. Cobb). Ultimately, the decisive fact was identified by an unexpected source: the elderly man (Joseph Sweeney) who noticed the marks on the nose of a key witness. Fonda hadn't noticed them and without the foresight to allow the elderly man's opinion to be welcomed, the case would have been lost. The bigot's opinion was subsequently rendered moot because it wasn't supported by substantiated evidence, just defiance.

Fonda started the dialogue, but the verdict was reached because of his courage to engage and respect the individual backgrounds and experiences of the other jurors. Fonda's approach led others to embrace the truth rather than resist it. Ultimately, their passion for the truth matched his own.

"12 ANGRY MEN" taught me the importance of keeping an open mind and having the courage and insight to submit my opinions to challenges. You ultimately get more respect...and more likely the right answer...when people see that you welcome debate and respect the rights of others to raise questions. When they feel empowered to participate, you stand the best chance of making a well-informed decision. If all you have to rely on to win is your title, you've already lost.

I think this thread has been fantastic...the best I've seen in my year on the board. Like others, I will root for the truth to win out. Evidence has been considered and support for the possibility has built steadily through the posts with exceptional contributions made by many members. I'm in awe of those who have enlightened us with new angles of insight and research. Is it Jackson? I don't know for sure, but I'm inclined to believe that those who think so have a reasonable basis for their opinion. I also think that the revelations of the last few days give us all reason to expect the mystery can be solved beyond a reasonable doubt when the original photograph is located. Fortunately, no one's life hangs in the balance.

Geez - and I finally said something nice about him.

Mark, apologies to you as well.

No problem. Sorry if I came off as too partisan early on. Anyway - download my newsletter (it's mainly about photos, not cards). You might like it if you liked this "discussion".

in regards to anonymity
 

Brett has a good reason to not have his name on the board. I took it down but if anyone wants it they can email me and I will ask to keep it private if I give it to you. With his apology to those involved I believe this is a fair solution, plus, he and the other guy probably didn't understand the whole anonymity thing. regards

You are correct once again Barry. It certainly didn't take long for someone to add JOE JACKSON to an auction site title: T202 HASSAN Lord / Tannehill SHOELESS JOE JACKSON PSA 4. Let's see what this one ends up being? Didn't list the auction as I didn't want to P&^% someone off, but it isn't too hard to find.

r/
Frank

Sorry guys, didn't know it was advertised on the BST ebay side, other wise I wouldn't have brought this thread to the top again.

What a great thread. I am convinced that it is more likely that the card pictures JJ than not.

I'm also glad that the photo ID topic on this board took a different twist. While I respect Mark's knowledge, I sometimes get frustrated by what I think is a dismissive tone any time the Magic Ear Rule isn't met. I didn't read early posts as "gosh, there just isn't really enough to go on here to say it's JJ for sure". To me the tone is more like "Well we don't have a Super Duper Really Colossal Perfect High Res scans so don't say that this is JJ because you can't. Topic over."

So I'm glad that this thread shows that there are other ways to try to determine photo subject, and that not being able to have the perfect photo evidence does not automatically kill the theory. We know that in most photos/issues from this era we are not going to the exact bullet-proof evidence, and allowing for discussion around some alternate logic is a good thing.

As to Brett, I thought his initial tone was just fine and am glad that it has returned to that. I was hoping the belligerence from the middle of the thread would disappear and hope it has.

Great thread.

J

(Full disclosure: Awhile ago I posted two photos of female teams from the 1890's. One had players labeled and the other did not. Uniforms were similar, and I asked if anyone thought that any of the players might be the same between photos. I made a sort of tongue-in-cheek comment about the Magic Ear Rule. Mark posted early in the thread that it was, of course, impossible to say because I hadn't posted a Super Duper Really Colossal Perfect High Res scan. Not sure if that killed the thread or not, but I really didn't get many responses and felt that Mark's post may have been at least part of the reason. So I am likely a bit touchy when I see an early post with a tone that I read as dismissive finality and am glad that this one didn't get killed by it.)

Just to be clear, I'm the one who listed it. When I started this thread a full week ago I didn't even remember that I had a second one aside from the one in my set. As soon as I realized it I mentioned it here and several people then started private messaging me because they wanted it. None of this really matters though because how, why, and when I sell my cards is nobody else's business. However, if it really makes certain people feel better I'll give you my word (on my mother) that when I started this thread I never even knew I had a spare (not that there'd be anything wrong with it if I had 10 of them). More than anything, I'm just as curious as anybody to see what it ends up going for (I predict somewhere between $99 and $1,000,000,000). Lol.

P.S. Why WOULDN'T anybody add Joe Jackson's name to the listing at this point?

Wow.

Brett- it probably has to do with how you listed it. You feel 100% certain it's Joe, and that's fine. The board survey, consisting of many advanced collectors, had varying degrees of certainty regarding the i.d. So how you worded the listing is critical, and what I read is that you have bypassed what the survey said and stated with certainty that it's Joe. That's the slippery slope here.

And I am one who does feel pretty confident you got the identification right.

They have books down there???

Brett,

When I first made this post I only noticed it on ebay, I had not yet looked on the BST side. I had no idea that it was you selling the card. I was just responding to Barry's post. Wasn't jumping on anyone or questioning their attempt or motivation at selling the card. If you read further down my post, I made an update that said that it was on the BST (at that point I knew it was you). I could care less what someone does with their own card and didn't indicate it was my business. I'm really not sure why you even went further into my post with all that crap, but anyway.

r/
Frank

Sure they do. Haven't you ever heard of the Texas Book Suppository?

Thanks for your thoughts and understanding throughout Barry. All I can say is I would easliy put my money where my mouth is on this topic. If everybody here could bet their life-savings double or nothing that it's Joe, I think most people would take that bet and they'd all end up twice as rich. I think at this point it's mostly semantics and common sense has taken over. Of course some people will always stick to their guns and say it's not him even if they really know in their heart that it is because... well, that's just the way some people are.

No problem Frank. To be honest this whole thing has kind of worn me down and taken the enjoyment out of the initial discovery anyway.

I think it's more than likely Say-It-Ain't-So Joe. If I had one, I'd be trying to persuade SGC or PSA to put "Joe Jackson" on the flip. For then, you would maximize the value of the card you are in such a rush to sell.

Moreover, if I had one and was sure it was Joe and wanted to sell it, I would wait until word of this discovery became a hobby staple, fully accepted by all. For then, the demand would be at its highest.

Now, you've stirred up demand, but if you're right, demand will grow by word of mouth.

Just peculiar to me that the thread starter is in such a rush to sell. But to each his own.

Fair enough. Please just understand that it was less of a "rush to sell" as it was a matter of MANY people here asking me to sell it until I figured "okay, let's all find out together what it's worth to somebody" (hence the title of my post "let the experiment begin"). All of a sudden people started attacking my character and integrity like I was Dick Cheney or something.

Brett- If I had listed it on ebay I would have worded it differently. I would have acknowledged what appears to be a new hobby discovery, would have mentioned that advanced collectors are still studying the image and making their determinations, and then stated that it is up to each bidder to determine his level of confidence regarding whether it is in fact Jackson. And it's fine to state that you feel 100% certain it's him.

That also covers you against any problems in the future if the winning bidder suddenly decides he is not sure who is in the picture. Again, that's just one way to do it.

I don't have the time to read through 53 pages of posts..... so if I missed some compelling evidence - forgive me.

In my opinion -
that could be just about anyone on that team sliding into third. anyone.

If you change the viewing of number of posts per page, you could get it down to only 14 pages :D

I've got my settings at the max of 80 posts per page. I can get through this in only 7 pages!

A couple of quick questions Brett. If you didn't know you had a second copy, as you claim, how is it that "MANY" other people here knew to email you and ask you to sell it to them? Are "MANY" other people keeping better track of your inventory than you are?

And, what's wrong with Dick Cheney?



(Note - The previous questions were asked with my tongue firmly imbedded in my cheek.)

Joe I personally feel post #361 with #405 are compelling evidence that the newspaper photo and T202 photo were taken during the same play. If you believe that statement is true than the T202 photo is Joe.

Where's Jim C. to turn this into a political discussion?

Hey Brett

If you are going to inject your "LIBERAL" politics into this fray....it will certainly bring this thread to a sudden end.

Which should have occurred 400 posts ago !


TED Z

Because mid-way through this thread I started looking through old stuff and I stumbled upon it. At that point I immediately mentioned it here and that's when all the pivate messages started. Here's the exact post I made 4 days and 300 posts ago when somebody joked that I was probably sitting on a stack of these cards...

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).

Joe D. It is Jackson, I'm pretty convinced of that.

Ted Z. I'm not sure you can characterize someone as "LIBERAL" just because he makes a comment about Dick Cheney.

How do you know I'm not ultra-conservative and just using Cheney as an example of somebody who was unfairly criticized? Please tell me all-knowing one. Also, if you think this thread should have ended 400 posts ago why are you still here?

Brett lol what happened to the kinder gentler you? :):)

pretty cool stuff. That is compelling evidence.


Good enough for me. I go with Steve (and others).


cool stuff.

I'm ok with Brett's response given the tone of Ted Z's post. Just a little tit-for-tat.

Peter, this IS the kinder, gentler me. I think you know what the "old" me would have told Ted after his mean-spirited, divicive, and condecending post.

Brett
 

Brett- edited because you were only retaliating....

Also, I can't imagine more than 50% of the folks on this board double downing their life savings on this being Joe Jackson. I definitely wouldn't.

You misspelled "divisive" and "condescending."

In case you don't know I'm the spelling cop around here.;)

edited as there are good points to be made it is Jackson.....

jmk59:
I'm also glad that the photo ID topic on this board took a different twist. While I respect Mark's knowledge, I sometimes get frustrated by what I think is a dismissive tone any time the Magic Ear Rule isn't met. I didn't read early posts as "gosh, there just isn't really enough to go on here to say it's JJ for sure". To me the tone is more like "Well we don't have a Super Duper Really Colossal Perfect High Res scans so don't say that this is JJ because you can't. Topic over."

me:
I don't agree with your reading. Early on in the thread I and others said that what was needed was to find the photo - probably in a newspaper. That is exactly what Greg did (at least nearly so). That is why so large a proportion of posters accept the image as JJ.

jmk59:
So I'm glad that this thread shows that there are other ways to try to determine photo subject,

me:
This is not something new for me or net54. See for example the West Side Grounds photo analysis in the thread:
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=122362

No ears were compared. We have a number of board members besides myself who are quite good at this sort of thing, at least including Tim, Paul and Greg as exemplified in the current thread, and Rhett.

jmk:
..and that not being able to have the perfect photo evidence does not automatically kill the theory.

me:
Near perfect photo evidence was found - that's why the ID has so much support.

jmk:
Full disclosure: Awhile ago I posted two photos of female teams from the 1890's. One had players labeled and the other did not. Uniforms were similar, and I asked if anyone thought that any of the players might be the same between photos.........Mark posted early in the thread that it was, of course, impossible to say because I hadn't posted a Super Duper Really Colossal Perfect High Res scan.....So I am likely a bit touchy when I see an early post with a tone that I read as dismissive finality

me:
Yes - that's what I said and it was correct based on what you posted. Since these were not major league players - the kind of research and analysis done here courtesy of Greg et. al. was extremely unlikely to happen. The "dismissive finality" as you put it, was clearly justified, though I don't think I was at all nasty about it. That's why there were no further posts.

Barry - did I spell et. al. correctly?

Nope...et al (no period):)

Technically, spelling is correct, punctuation isn't. Carry on.

No more Latin from me.

Actually, I think the "al" portion takes a period as, unlike
"et" it is an abbreviation.

"al" is short for "alia"