Posted By:
Addie_JossI still think the intention is clear that it was supposed to be a Dad Clarkson card because of the year it was printed and the team designation. I don't think it was an accident that they featured Clarkson palying for St. Louis in 1895, which should be a clear indicator that Dad Clarkson was intended to be included in the set.
As I said before, there are plenty of examples of HOFer cards that are only HOFer cards in name because they don't feature an image of the HOF player. Some examples have been discussed, such as the Bill Terry card. The Bill Terry card is only a Bill Terry card because of the name and not the image. Using that same standard, I don't see how you can then say that this is a John Clarkson card even though it seems extremely likely it is supposed to be Dad Clarkson just because of the image on the card. If you go by name designation for every other instance, why change the way you catalogue a card this time? If image is not what makes a card of a particular player, but rather the name on the card and the card's intention to feature that player, why are so many of you veering towards the image determining the player this time?