I'm almost POSITIVE this card features Shoeless Joe...

[packs]

Baseball-Reference is showing that there were 38 players on Cleveland's team in 1911. So if this photo is from 1911, there is a 1 in 38 chance that it is Jackson. Personally, the photo is so hard to see I don't think you could really make a determination. But purely gut feeling tells me that Jackson looks like a baby in his T5 and that guy sliding into third has the look of a grizzled veteran to me. It also looks like th sliding player's stirrups don't continue to their foot, while both photos of Jackson show him wearing stirrups that go all the way to his feet. Although that could just be the angle.

[barrysloate]

Let's see if this card starts showing up on ebay with the description T202 Joe Jackson. My gut says it will.

[barrysloate]

I also think Brett deserves an award for the best first post ever!

[Matt]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Let's see if this card starts showing up on ebay with the description T202 Joe Jackson. My gut says it will.

I don't think there's any doubt. And the beauty of it is that unless someone can prove it's absolutely not him, the seller can't be held accountable.

[Tcards-Please]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Let's see if this card starts showing up on ebay with the description T202 Joe Jackson. My gut says it will.

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.

[jmk59]

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.)

[bmarlowe1]

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?

[barrysloate]

Nope...et al (no period)

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

[bmarlowe1]

No more Latin from me.

[brett]

Originally Posted by T's please

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.

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?

[jmk59]

Wow.

[barrysloate]

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.

[brett]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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.

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.

[Tcards-Please]

Originally Posted by brett

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?

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

[brett]

Originally Posted by T's please

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

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.

[brett]

Originally Posted by packs

Baseball-Reference is showing that there were 38 players on Cleveland's team in 1911. So if this photo is from 1911, there is a 1 in 38 chance that it is Jackson. Personally, the photo is so hard to see I don't think you could really make a determination. But purely gut feeling tells me that Jackson looks like a baby in his T5 and that guy sliding into third has the look of a grizzled veteran to me. It also looks like th sliding player's stirrups don't continue to their foot, while both photos of Jackson show him wearing stirrups that go all the way to his feet. Although that could just be the angle.

I'd say it's a much better than 1 in 38 chance. Half the guys you're talking about were pitchers who had a total combined 537 plate appearances, while Joe had 641 alone that year. He also led the team (by far) in hits, doubles, triples, steals, and average (.408 that year). In fact, if you want to go by stats it's MOST LIKELY that it would be him sliding into 3rd in that picture. Also, he looked very grizzled from a young age. Look at more pics of him. He also has the same ears, face, and long and lean build.

[Tcards-Please]

After I analyzed the evidence, with a dual-column gas chromatograph, Hewlett-Packard model 5710a with flame analyzing detectors, I have concluded that it could be anyone on the Cleveland team in 1911, but if I were going to make an educated guess, I would say it is either Joe Jackson or Ivy Olson.

I couldn't resist using a line from one of my favorite movies

r/
Frank

[brett]

Also, this is how old he looked in 1910...

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by T's please

After I analyzed the evidence, with a dual-column gas chromatograph, Hewlett-Packard model 5710a with flame analyzing detectors, I have concluded that it could be anyone on the Cleveland team in 1911, but if I were going to make an educated guess, I would say it is either Joe Jackson or Ivy Olson.

I couldn't resist using a line from one of my favorite movies

r/
Frank

So you're Vinny's cousin eh?????

Sorry, it was waaay tooooooo easyyyyyyyy

Steve

[CW]

Interesting observation, Brett, and welcome to N54!

Here's a closeup image, cropped, with a little bit more contrast...

[tedzan]

Upon closer observation, he does pass the "ear test"....I have to agree, it's Joe Jax.

But, it begs the question....why wasn't Joe featured in this set ?

He did bat .408 in 1911, and he certainly deserves to be on one of the panels.

Actually, the bigger question is....why isn't Joe on any of the ATC cards (1912-1917)
featuring him as a Major Leaguer ? ?


TED Z

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't see how we can make a positive identification without being able to see his hair or his eyes, on a tiny image. I don't disagree that there is a resemblance, and it could well be he, but that hardly is proof positive.

[DixieBaseball]

Peter - There is not proof positive, but I think common sense says this is probably him due to resemblence, ears on blow up, etc. -- I would say it is more likely him than anyone else on the team. I like Brett's argument even though it can't be proved either way.

Were these panels taken from a photo/negative ? Was there a particular photographer for the orginal panel ? I don't know much about the T202's, but it would be neat to know the source of the middle panel...

[tbob]

I think it will always remain a mystery. It could by Joe, but just as easily Terry Turner or Ivy Olson.
Turner seated with Jackson, the other two photos are of Ivy.