Getting the Record Straight Shoeless Joe Jackson Military service

[the-illini]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

I have to say, the Jackson mis-identification is far less egregious than that Fleetwood Walker travesty. "He's black and he's on an early baseball team," seems to be the only link between that guy and Walker. To even get that as far as an auction preview is pretty embarrassing.

Ken

I think the Amos Rusie photo is just as bad. Someone wrote Rusie's name on the back of the photo and H&S mentioned that he was tall just like the guy in the front of the coach - it's gotta be him.

Chris Bland

[Lordstan]

I agree with many of the last several posters have stated.
First, you post an item with some assertion of what it is and ask for our help identifying and pricing it. Someone has answered pretty much every thread questioning your identification of every item, with exception of the Pittsburgh and Gehrig Day items. Sometime the response was that it isn't the person you think. Other responses have been asking for more information or provenance from you regarding how you know what the item is. Your response is often a mixture of ignoring/ejecting the questions and challenges of the board members or some sort of double talk. I guess it's either meant to distract, you really have no idea what you are doing, or you are really wishing the things to be what you think that you are blinded to all reason. As I don't know you personally, I have no idea which it is, but it does get tiring. People get put off from answering as they don't feel it's worth going through the same dance over and over again.

[packs]

How did you (H&S) go about ID'ing the horse and carriage photo? The description states no parallel between the supposed manager and Rusie exists, yet it is priced to reflect Rusie being in the photo.

Just wondering what the determining factor was. The inscription on the back references the HOF, so it must have been made at least 35 years after Rusie's death. Does the AH agree that it is Rusie?

[honus94566]

Originally Posted by hugginsandscott

One thing we cannot do is say that he is "in uniform" in this picture. He is one only a handful of the 173 people in an overcoat (while most are in full uniform). He is wearing a hat, but that could have been given to him for the purpose of the photo. We are running this photo because we believe it is "Shoeless" Joe Jackson. There is evidence to support that he toured various military operations in and around the Mid-Atlantic area following his tenure in the Bethlehem Steel League and prior to Spring Training of 1919.
The photo is certainly a type 1 period photo from Camp Meade, MD and it's dated December 4, 1918.

I would be curious if Mike Nola has any documentation showing that Jackson was back in South Carolina by early December, however I would suspect that would be very difficult to obtain. It is in our opinion that the man in the back of that photograph is Joe Jackson; hence we are offering it as such.
thanks,
Josh Wulkan
Huggins and Scott Auctions

I am a latecomer to this thread, but wow, just wow...

After the "Partial Possible T206 Wagner" back and other debacles I have stopped supporting H&S.

This kind of garbage just reinforces that was the correct decision.

Come on H&S! You guys should be absolutely embarrassed of yourselves.

I do appreciate the comedy, though. Makes my workday more entertaining.

[Ladder7]

Originally Posted by honus94566

Come on H&S! You guys should be absolutely embarrassed of yourselves.

No worries. The buyer's fee cures all embarrassment.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by the-illini

While you are correcting things, this is not an N173 Old Judge cabinet, despite what the SGC flip says...

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-b...l?itemid=77141

Chris Bland

And it's more likely that "Pugg" or possibly "Rugg" is not a tobacco plant but a photographer.

Steve B

[Directly]

I would enjoy replying to this post with my opinion what I call the Ear-thing. I thought it might be better to first ask to allow a heads-up because each time I have a different point of view, insight or even think outside the box, it infuriates a few, and that's not my objective but politely in good taste my goal is to debunk the Ear-thing theory being the 100 percent gospel, I might want to start a new thread--??

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Directly

I would enjoy replying to this post with my opinion what I call the Ear-thing. I thought it might be better to first ask to allow a heads-up because each time I have a different point of view, insight or even think outside the box, it infuriates a few, and that's not my objective but politely in good taste my goal is to debunk the Ear-thing theory being the 100 percent gospel, I might want to start a new thread--??

Oh, this should be good.

Yes, please do start a new thread. Let's not hide your insight at the end of this dying one.

[Lordstan]

Oh boy. Here we go. Welcome back Mr Comiskey .

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Directly

I would enjoy replying to this post with my opinion what I call the Ear-thing...my goal is to debunk the Ear-thing theory being the 100 percent gospel, I might want to start a new thread--??

It's funny, the OP really did remind me of Directly. Anyway, if he wishes has can try to debunk the following;

From “Foresnsic Art and Illustration,” Chapter 9, CRC Press, 2000, K. T. Taylor (available on Amazon.com):
When comparing faces [in photos], Bertillon placed particular importance on the configurations of the structures within the profile ear. His approach is still valid today. I have often referred to Bertillon’s suggestions, relying on ears for reliable comparisons. Figure 9.1 shows an early photo-to-photo comparison by Bertillon in which the structure of the ears revealed the identity of a man, although his appearance has changed considerably over a 7-year interval.

From “Ear Biometrics,” H. K. Lammi, Lappeenrenta University, Information Processing Lab, Lappeenranta, Finalnd:
Basically the human ear shape is the same during the whole life and the growth is proportional. However, the gravity can cause ear stretching. The [rate of] stretching is about five times greater...after about [age] 70.

From “Photo Fakery,” D. A. Brugioni, Founder of the CIA Photo Interpretation Center, Brassey Press, 1999:
In discussing the detection of a fake photo of Mao, he states, “The ears gave the double away…Police and investigative units frequently use the physical characteristics of the ear…By carefully matching the differences become very apparent…In advanced age, the lobe will usually lengthen.

[Econteachert205]

I'd like to debunk this gravity, science and math thing while we're at it.

[Lordstan]

Directly,
The reason people get upset is that people, like you, come on here asking for help with their items. When it turns out that the item isn't what they thought it was, they get defensive and keep arguing. Perhaps a better idea might be to say thank you to those who are offering the benefit of the knowledge they have acquired over years of experience.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Directly

I would enjoy replying to this post with my opinion what I call the Ear-thing. I thought it might be better to first ask to allow a heads-up because each time I have a different point of view, insight or even think outside the box, it infuriates a few, and that's not my objective but politely in good taste my goal is to debunk the Ear-thing theory being the 100 percent gospel, I might want to start a new thread--??

There is not much in this world that is 100 percent gospel. Old, b&w, grainy images being compared at different angles and different sizes is no exception. I do believe, however, that ears compared side by side of the same person/different images(if they are clear and concise comparisons) is pretty damn scientific though. The key is getting the correct/clear comparisons imo. I would love to hear what you have to say in another thread actually and I am sure it will provide net54 with a lot of hits.
I can guarantee you one this is for sure.. no F N way this is the same guy.

[FourStrikes]

+1000

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

I can guarantee you one this is for sure.. no F N way this is the same guy.

Now that's a classic, Ben!!

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

There is not much in this world that is 100 percent gospel. Old, b&w, grainy images being compared at different angles and different sizes is no exception. I do agree that ears compared side by side of the same person/different images(if they can be clearly compared) is pretty damn scientific though. The key, is getting the correct/clear comparisons imo. I would love to hear what you have to say in another thread actually and I am sure it will provide net54 with a lot of hits.
I can guarantee you one this is for sure.. no F N way this is the same guy.

That's the same guy you just got a picture of the before and after Tyson fight.

[CW]

Ben, that is hilarious!

[Directly]

Lordstan :-)--thanks for what?--jealousy.

Forever Young :-)---There is not much in this world that is 100 percent gospel. Old, b&w, grainy images being compared at different angles and different sizes is no exception. I do believe, however, that ears compared side by side of the same person/different images(if they are clear and concise comparisons) is pretty damn scientific though. The key is getting the correct/clear comparisons imo.

Directly :-) -Agree!

bmarlowe1 :-) ?????

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

The key is getting the correct/clear comparisons imo. I would love to hear what you have to say in another thread...

Ben - You can see what he had to say here: http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163481 If you see anything rational, let me know. Be sure not to miss posts 37 and 50.

He claimed and apparently still believes that these two are the same person. It's more than clear enough to see what we need to see.

[jerseygary]

Wow, I thought you were joking with the 2 pics of that supposed "match" until I went back and read the thread you linked to it. You could tell by the uniforms alone that was a dubious "match" but the whole ear thing takes that into a new realm of impossibilities.

Some sly picker or shady wholeseller must have a stack of these nameless 19th century team pictures and gleefully unloads them on romantic wishful thinkers, then sits back and watches the chaos ensue as he counts his Benjamins.

[yanks12025]

Looks like he ain't posting anymore. Hopefully it stays that way.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Ben - You can see what he had to say here: http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163481 If you see anything rational, let me know. Be sure not to miss posts 37 and 50.

He claimed and apparently still believes that these two are the same person. It's more than clear enough to see what we need to see.

Uhhhh.... Yeah. I would say that this one in particular is gospel.

[Directly]

Directly :-) --yes I would really ask to start a new thread- but please try and keep it educational-informative and interesting!

P/S --bmarlowe1 :-) I' m deeply hurt but must for a informational purposes only and my opinion your ear thing comparison between 150 old photo's to say nicely- was really under the bus! (terrible)

[yanks12025]

It now looks like this guys 1909 pirates poster was stolen from the hall of fame twice.

[Ladder7]

Another blame the messenger -rags to riches, back to rags story... Thanks for stopping by!

[67Rally]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

It now looks like this guys 1909 pirates poster was stolen from the hall of fame twice.

This was one of the most interesting threads that I have read on any message board. I realize that I am johnny-come-lately on this thread but having read this one and the two others, I found myself astonished. From the moment I saw the first thread with the OP's sharing of the framed yardlong, I wondered which soldier was being referenced as Jackson. I tried to give benefit of doubt though my first instincts were to re-examine each face in that top row trying to see which one could be mistaken for the man. Not one person stood out to me.

When someone buys the story rather than the artifact, they want so desperately to believe it to be true despite every indication that the story is BS. To deny biographers who have researched this man ad nauseum and never having found a shred of evidence of service and then to ignore this fact while trying to sell the piece (hoping for a large payday) is a massive credibility hole.

Thanks to all who weighed in.

I am just a lowly researcher and military historian with a focus on baseball militaria.

ChevronsandDiamonds.org