You are correct. Some of the cards from this set have older pictures. For example, the Lajoie and some of the Birmingham cards show them wearing Cleveland uniforms from a few years earlier. However, this card is definitely from 1911 because 1911 was both Lord's first full season with Chicago and Shoeless Joe's first full season with Cleveland AND (coincidently) the year where he wore a white wrap on his right ankle as seen in this picture from that year...

Brett concerning the ankle wrap it's already been pointed out that several other players in the same photo are wearing one as well. As much as I would like for this to be some type of definitive proof that the T202 was Joe it's not.

My final thouhts on the Shoeless Joe thread I started...
 

First of all, thanks to everybody for the response to my first ever post! It means a lot because I've been a long-time admirer of this board and in my opinion it's the only intelligent place for discourse with the finest minds in the hobby. Here's why I'm now even more sure than before that it's Joe Jackson... First off, I have this entire set as well as other Shoeless Joe cards so it's not like I'm just being hopeful or trying to talk myself into believing it's him. The last few times I've looked closely at this set, every time I've gotten to that card I've instinctively stopped and said "Holy crap, that's Joe Jackson!". In fact, the other cards in this set that other people now think could also be him (Baker Gets His Man or Too Late For Devlin) I disagree with. The players in those pictures just don't look like Joe to me. Trust me though, when you look at this card IN PERSON it looks JUST LIKE HIM!... The picture isn't blurry at all and you get a very good look at his face. Simply put, it passes the eyeball test. I consider myself to have a tremendous knowledge of Cleveland baseball history as they are my all-time favorite team and I've looked at every Shoeless Joe picture from Cleveland so I'm very familiar with his facial features, build, etc. I obviously thought it was him when I first posted this, but since people started showing pictures of him from the SAME year wearing the SAME white ankle wrap on the SAME right ankle that he's wearing in the T202 picture I now think it's a slam-dunk (and nobody's going to convince me otherwise). He stole a lot of bases in his career but he also got thrown out alot which is another reason I think it makes sense that he would be trying to steal 3rd in the first place as well as possibly getting caught. Also, when you look at the 3 photos stacked on top of each other you see that he has the same exact sliding form with his left hand extended way out in all of them. Sure it's all deductive reasoning, but so is the existence of Dinosaurs.

The reason why I think it's taken so long for this to be discovered is (1) His name isn't mentioned on the card and the picture isn't right in your face making it obvious, (2) this set is much more obscure and rare than others of the era, and (3) too many people just see cards as currency now and don't take enough time to closely study and enjoy them.

Here are all the pictures including the entire 1911 Cleveland team with just 2 players wearing a wrap on only their right ankle (and the other guy looks nothing like the guy with the pointy chin and big ears (Joseph Jefferson Jackson) sliding on the T202 card)... Look at all the evidence, it's gotta be him!

Saying the photo must be 1911 because Shoeless Joe is in it, is circular. Maybe it's 1909 and that is someone else.

It's not several, it's 3 out of 20+ players and none of the other guys look anything like the guy sliding on the T202 card like Joe Jackson does.

Brett,

As someone who works in the industry I certainly buy #1 and 3, but not #2.

James

Wrong, because Harry Lord (the Chicago player on 3rd base) didn't play a full season in Chicago until 1911 after being traded from Boston and the only games he played against Cleveland in 1910 were in Chicago. This picture was taken in Cleveland meaning that it is DEFINITELY from 1911.

Brett
 

Brett- I know you are new to the forum, and this was a great first endeavor, but please keep your thoughts in this one thread and don't start anymore about the same subject. It starts clogging the board up.....as we already have the poll about the card also. Thanks for your understanding.....take care

nm

It's 5 on the specific day of this photo but any player on the team could have worn the same wrap on any other day.

True enough... but not any other player on the team could put on a wrap and start looking identical to Joe Jackson in the face.

Based on the images that have been shown on this thread, and the running dialogue herein, I hardly think the conclusion that the T202 image looks "identical to Joe Jackson in the face" can be drawn.

I would love to believe that it is Shoeless Joe, but I am not convinced either way on it.

Tim merely showed pics from the uniform database which showed that the uniforms from 1911 did not have the inner black collar. On post #64 I showed a picture of Jackson in his home uniform from a game in 1911 with an inner black collar, so the image of the sliding Cleveland player can still be from 1911. If it could be proved the image was from 1910 or earlier there is no way it is Shoeless on the T202. Shoeless joined the team for the last 20 games of the 1910 season and Cleveland did not host Chicago in the 20 game span.

It IS proven that the picture is from 1911. Forget about when Shoeless Joe played because Harry Lord (the Chicago 3rd baseman) didn't play a full season in Chicago until 1911 after being traded from Boston and the only games HE played against Cleveland in 1910 were in Chicago. This picture was taken in Cleveland meaning that it HAD TO BE from 1911. Another reason that it's more than likely Joe Jackson.

It's 3 players with the C on their uniform.

Edited - I see now. The photo extended further than I initially looked. I still only count 4.

I'm assuming that the Boston road uniforms in that era do not resemble what Lord is wearing, correct? If incorrect, then we cannot rule out a year predating 1911.

Assuming Lord could not have been wearing such a uniform before 1911 (thereby dating the image to 1911), for those so inclined, there is more that can be done -- looking up newspaper accounts of the games to see if any make mention of plays at third involving Cleveland players. Such research in and of itself will not establish who the player is, but it can give more clues.

posted by botn:
You aren't really this arrogant in person are you?

And there was no way to misinterpret what I wrote on this thread if you actually took the time to read it so not sure what your motivation was to categorize my comments as not making any sense other than to make trouble.

---------------------------------

The arrogance began with your comments directed at T206DK. He is neither diplomatic nor concise - but he was right. It nice enough for folks on the thread to encourage a new poster like Brett - but as can now be seen, with a little encouragement from some board members, he has totally gone off the rails of rationality. If you think that's an arrogant comment, I really don't care.

While Brett apparently does not know, many of us do know (and I believe that includes you) how often these cases of "resemblance" and "I'm sure it's him" turn out when we can get an answer.

The recent thread on "Dimaggio" is a perfect case in point - and that guy really did look like Dimaggio. http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=122231

I had already suggested in a much earlier post that play by play or detailed box scores might reveal more. Bob Lemke stated he has TSN which would cover games from 1911. I think going to the local paper, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, is going to prove to be the best source.

You are right I do not know you. I was not the only one, nor was I the first, to interpret your posts as being bitter.

I understand your point about opportunists but don't think what has been posted here is going to result in some innocent person being sold an example of this card as if it depicts Jackson. Going to take a lot more than a seller’s claim to change the minds of collectors on an issue as well established as a T202. It is not as if this is unique cabinet.

Corey - the fielder's uniform appears consistent with the White Sox 1903 - 1912. It's definitely not Boston.

I agree with the comment on newspaper articles. The problem is that they may omit a play at third, so how can one know?

What is needed is to find that photo in a newspaper. Doing it with microfilm is not too bad a job, but doing it online if one has such access to Cleveland papers takes forever (I have tried similar quite few times).

I posted Joe's info from the May 3-6th homestand above; the paper did not say anything about CS.

Which is why I have stated in every post that more research needs to be done (you know the ones which have not made any sense to you) and even then it may not be conclusive. I have no problem with people cautioning others or being skeptical but there are ways to do it that are more appropriate. Arrogance, and I was being kind when I used that word, is exemplified by your decree that it is threads like this that are destroying the hobby. That is utterly laughable.

Today Brett may have gotten ahead of himself but your denouncing of this thread happened prior to that. And Brett's enthusiasm over the card does not change the points which were made and the research which can still be done. His contribution simply had to be pointing out the card to us.

It's CLEARLY a Chicago uniform that Lord is wearing, and it's obviously in Cleveland so it's now been established that the picture is from 1911. There is a lot of evidence now that it's likely Shoeless Joe, and NO evidence that would indicate that it isn't.

Hi Matt,

There will be more detail in the local Cleveland paper and possibly TSN. I now have many of the box scores for games in 1911 Chi vs Cle but they came from the New York Times and omit a lot of detail, including the CS stat. I posted an example of one on Saturday.

Greg

Brett remember that I don't need to have any evidence to say that it's not Joe and you need something factual to say that it is. Right now even with all the things that point to it possibly being Joe you don't have anything definitive to say that it is. With that said I encourage you and everyone else to keep looking.

Exactly. It would be great if this turns out to be Jackson, but absent a corroborating photo from a newspaper or archive you just can't say with any certainty that it is Jackson.

Despite the minor blow ups this thread really is a great one and despite what others might say this really is good for the hobby to have these types of discussions.

By the way, it looks like Joe had the white wrap on his right ankle during most or all of the 1911 season. I've also included a closeup of his face from that same year and you'll see the same features as the guy sliding on the card. Also, click on the link below to see a high-resolution scan of the 1911 team and once again, you'll see that Jackson is the only guy who looks just like the guy pictured on the T202.

http://www.blackbetsy.com/imagefarm/...orama-6500.jpg

posted by botn:
Today Brett may have gotten ahead of himself but your denouncing of this thread happened prior to that.

----------------------------

What Brett said today was very predictable and in line with a lot of the previous posts of some board members. It was easy to see where the thread was going, that's why I "denounced" it.

There have been a lot of excellent threads on this board with respect to photo ident. - I'll have to disagree with my friends Barry and Dan, I just don't think this is one of them (though it does have some entertainment value).

If one is seriously interested in what it takes to decipher photos like this, I would arrogantly suggest two articles by the late George Michael that appeared in The Baseball Research Journal a few years back. What should be obvious is that it is nearly impossible to get an answer on this photo - unless you actually find the photo.

Another good example is the Fed Lg photo that Rhys posted recently (the key to figuring out that one was the scoreboard info ).
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=121135
That was an excellent thread and great detective work by Rhys.

Another good one is http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=119887 started by abravefan who has managed to be both very right and very patient and diplomatic on this thread (I need to try that sometime).

These are probably too arrogant for botn, but others might enjoy:
http://tiny.cc/ka9n9 and
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=122362

Dan, I understand what you're saying, but if I show you a photo of Barack Obama without a corroborating photo from a newspaper or archive does that mean you can't say without certainty that it's him? There have been many, many instances of newspapers and card companies misidentifying people throughout the years. Does that mean that just because they say it's somebody that it has to be true? Good luck finding the photographer or photo editor from 100 years ago. The same way that an old autograph or jersey is authenticated if everything about it looks consistent with it's day, everything about this card now points to it being Shoeless Joe Jackson... The photo is confirmed to be from 1911, Joe was known to have worn a right ankle wrap that year, he physically looks the same as every other photo that shows him sliding, and most importantly if you've seen enough pics of Shoeless Joe you would know by just looking at his face on that card (not on a low-resolution computer scan) that it's him. The world heard it here on the Net 54 Forum first! You are all very welcome, and if there's any sort of award that comes with this Leon can just accept it on my behalf and donate it to the HOF. ;)

actually, I can see this happening. I can see some unscrupulous dealer using the info gleaned from this post to further his point to try to convince a buyer. It may never happen, but it's very possible.

In looking at the close up photos and the extraneous pics the Brett has found. I think the player sliding actually looks a bit older than Jackson looks in some of the other shots where you can see his face. I've been trying to find some pictures of him wearing a leg wrap from his time in New Orleans, but haven't had any luck yet. A collector friend of mine who lives in New Orleans is going to ask around also. the resolution of the sliding players face is too poor and the brim of his cap covers to much of the upper part for me to say it's Jackson at all. Some facial features look the same, but they could be contorted because the guy is sliding hard into a base during a game.

Mark- I still think this is a good thread because it has allowed collectors a chance to research a photo and share their findings. That's a lot more than what goes on in most threads around here. The fact that the research may lead to a dead end, or to an erroneous finding, doesn't mean it's not a good one. At least it has made some people think. What's wrong with that?

I don't know about any injuries Jackson may have had until about 1914, but I have also wondered if the wrap or sock he wears was to protect his leg against being hit by pitchers or from foul balls. here is an interesting link from SABR on Shoeless Joe http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?...=1715&pid=6843

My thoughts exactly. I would actually think that Mark would love threads like this because it gives him an opportunity to educate and also a new subject for research. I do believe that Brett is jumping the gun here...there's probably enough evidence for a Texas district attorney that this is Jackson, but like I said before, absent an identifying photo from the photographer this will not be conclusive.

Brett,

That's not how photo ID works. The burden is not on me to prove it is not Joe Jackson. Rather, it's your burden to prove it is. Collectively the posts on this thread make a compelling case it might very well be Jackson. But can you PROVE no other Cleveland players that year did not wear a white ankle wrap, or did not have facial features that RESEMBLE Jackson's? In my experiences with photo ID, I can tell you there have been a number of instances such as this where people in the utmost of good faith thought an image depicted someone, only to subsequently learn it (almost certainly) did not.

Again, I'm not saying it is not Jackson. I'm only saying that without more we'll simply never know.

Dan:
I would actually think that Mark would love threads like this because it gives him an opportunity to educate and also a new subject for research

------------------------------------------

Yeah - OK

Here are close-ups of the four players wearing the white ankle wrap on the right ankle, compared to the player in question. A higher resolution scan of the card is needed for a better comparison. Then maybe players can be ruled out based on facial features.
Is there any significance that the first and fourth players appear to have caps where the "C" is faded and slightly off center? The 2nd and 3rd players appear to have darker caps with a whiter "C" that appears to be more centered, like the hat of the player in question.

Paul C.

hmmmm the blow up compared to the 4 pictures of the players looks kind like the first player.....even the ears kind of look similar. the resolution is not that good though

Bill Bradley??
 

I don't mean to be a killjoy in this really fascinating thread, especially with a post from a newbie, but could the sliding player be Bill Bradley?
I believe his last year with Cleveland was 1910, and Lord was with the Chisox during the last half of 1910. Couldn't the photo be from 1910 instead of 1911?
Plus, he has prominent ears and a thin face similar to the sliding player (and a similar appearance to Jackson.) But, I have no explanation for the ankle wrap :confused:

If it's Joe Jackson, that would be really awesome and a great find. As others have stated, we'll never know for sure until the original photo is found.
Again, this is a great thread! :)


Note: Photos from a thread on baseball-fever.com

I believe it's been determined that Lord joined Chicago late in the 1910 season, and only played 3-4 games against Cleveland, and all the games were in Chicago. Based on this, the photo must be from 1911.

Steve

originally posted by brett:
The photo is confirmed to be from 1911, Joe was known to have worn a right ankle wrap that year, he physically looks the same as every other photo that shows him sliding, and most importantly if you've seen enough pics of Shoeless Joe you would know by just looking at his face on that card (not on a low-resolution computer scan) that it's him. The world heard it here on the Net 54 Forum first! You are all very welcome, and if there's any sort of award that comes with this Leon can just accept it on my behalf and donate it to the HOF. ;) <!-- / message --><!-- edit note -->


--------------------
Why not make a high res scan and post it?

Dan & Barry - it should be clear why I don't like this thread. If I'm arrogant, at least I have a track record of being right about some things sometimes. This guy doesn't have a clue and nothing anyone says is going to help. He still doesn't know what he doesn't know, and kindly reasoning will not change anything. If he wants to comprehend reality, he should try to get a copy of this card placed in JJ's file at HoF.

Wishful thinking is not the same as fact. The photo is too grainy, and too little of his face is visible, to make a positive identification.

Im gonna agree it's JJJ... As soon as I get one in my hands.

Mark- I would like to see Brett a little more open-minded to other opinions. Let's see where this thread is at by post # 300.

Short of finding information on the original photo I think the debate will be just as contested at post #300 as it is now. There just isn't anything definitive to say it's Jackson and everything that has been put forward to this point, no matter how compelling, has just been speculation.

Mark, I don't think you're arrogant about it...I do think you come off as angry though when these threads pop up and I can understand that you don't like to see collectors be taken by misidentified photos, but IMO threads like these are educational. Even if some people can't be convinced it doesn't mean the thread isn't useful. A part of this hobby has always been speculation. It's fascinating to me what this thread did for a card that's been floating around the hobby for 100 years now as a "common." I certainly wouldn't be surprised if Brett has already stocked up on more than a few of these cards before posting this thread.

At this point it's circumstantial evidence with no smoking gun, but it is fun. :D

Now that is a rational explanation. In fact - it may be the best post on this thread.

Dan I agree completely. Even a road that leads to a dead end can be a fun ride.

http://www.blackbetsy.com/imagefarm/jj1913s1.jpg
Here's a photo of Joe sliding into third base in 1913.

I'm not familiar enough with him to know if his sliding style was unique, but it looks similar to the one in the T202 photo.

Maybe someone should ask the Joe Jackson Museum what they think, or whoever maintains the Black Betsy website?

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).

Barry I have nothing but respect for you and everybody else on here. I respect everybody's right to an opinion (sort of like religion). If somebody believes the player on that card is Oscar Gamble I'm cool with it if it makes them happy. I just firmly believe that I'm right on this one and that we've discovered something special together. Not wishful thinking on my part, just combining my knowledge with other people's observations and it all seems to add up beyond a reasonable doubt.

PM Sent to brett!

Thanks Brett. I do understand that you feel virtually certain you are right, but not everyone is on board yet. Let's see how this goes.

I assume you're not a prosecuting attorney by trade?

Actually I'm a sports agent, but good guess on your part based off that last post. :D

Hey! I already made that joke. :D

Great minds think alike! :)

Here's ANOTHER thing to consider... an earlier poster showed closeup face pics of the 4 guys on the 1911 Naps team who wore ankle wraps on their right foot. Aside from the "C" on two of the guys' hats being faded (and I'm sure these guys didn't have access to numerous hats in a season like today's ballplayers), look at how Joe's sideburns are cut sharply at the top of his ears just like the guy in the sliding picture. GODDAMNIT IT'S GOTTA BE HIM!!!:D:D:D

It looks to me like it can only be the middle-right guy or SJJ. They are the only ones with "sunken" cheek-bones and Joe's go higher, like in the card. Plus as someone mentioned, Joe's C is more prominent on his cap.

Brett - you're overboard on the foot wrap thing. To assume just because months later only 4 people are wearing foot wraps, why does that have any bearing on the game in question? Was it worn for style? To heal an ankle injury? Either way, knowing how superstituous baseball players are, maybe a guy in slump decided to wear one for a few games or whatever.
That is why for photo ID you look at unique facial features like the ears and the spacing of features on the face, as Mark has explained many times - those won't change 4 months later.

That's why first and foremost I always said that the facial resemblance is the main reason I believe it's him. All these other factors are just the icing on the cake. Look at the cheekbones, ears, lips, chin, etc... The picture is not that small and not that grainy where you can't get a good enough look and see that it's him. The ankle wrap is just all the more reason. If I had to bet all the money I have on whether it's him or not I'd bet that it is and I'd like my chances of winning.

originally posted by Brett:
The picture is not that small and not that grainy where you can't get a good enough look and see that it's him.

-------------------

Yes, it is too small and too grainy. I'm being way too nice here, but all you can accurately say is that it can be JJ. That is all that anyone who does this seriously would accept.

Since you say you have 2 of them, I am wondering why you don't post a 600 dpi scan - and just crop out the face. If you don't know how, there are people that can help you. That may or may not help.

Mark, based on the 4 close-ups of 1911 Naps players in post #219, can any of their facial features exclude them from being the player in question?

After alot of thought and reading...
 

I am ready to say that it is reasonable to think that the sliding player on the T202 card is in fact a Cleveland player. But I think that is all we can know at this time.

I guess everyone overlooked the white wrap on the other foot. Its as clear as can be in seeing the distinct outline of the shoe, white wrap, and then black sock.

It's not JJ.

Kind of hard to say that when his left leg is underneath his body completely out of sight.

Paul - they way I would like to put it is that I can't be sure who it is or isn't based on what has been posted and also the reproduction in Slocum's book.

I know it's not your job to do so, but who is the player then, if it's not Joe Jackson? Who was it before it "became" Jackson?

You must be blind or in denial with the others that are hyping the card. You can clearly see the shoe, white wrap and then the black top of the sock. The arrow points to where the wrap and sock meet.

Did anyone else notice that in the Addy Joss panorama picture Jack Graney is pictured twice? :eek:

From that to the collection of talent, to Cobb in a Cleveland uni, to the history surrounding it, it's a special photo. I created a wall display surrounding it.

I think you are seeing what you want to see. Look at post #209 in this thread. It's a clear as day example of a Jackson slide and his left leg is so far under his backside that it's not visibly there, just like the T202 card. You are seeing dusty air under his right leg. Who the heck slides with both feet extended. Answer, no one. I don't have a horse in this race. I don't have the card and don't plan on getting any.

The other foot is behind a huge cloud of dust and you're not seeing anything clear whatsoever. Pay more attention to the features on the player's face and tell me who you think it is.

While you guys have been arguing about the foot wrap, I just made three more deals over on the BST.

I guess there is a rule that it has to be proven that it is JJ, and not the other way around. I didn't know about that, I thought more people would be able to explain why they didn't feel it was him. I think Andrew is the only one who gave a reason why he felt it wasn't JJ.

To me, I can see why Brett thinks this is Jackson, and from looking at all of the photos, comparing the slide, the uniform, the hat, the leg wrap, the facial features (what we can see from them)........I am becoming convinced (almost ;) ).

I understand whats coming next--it's all speculation without proof--I know guys. But can you all agree that you see what Brett is seeing? I can.

Clayton

Clayton,

It may be difficult to PROVE, but based on the information that has been posted before (facial features, sliding style, hat, etc) I think it may be him as well. We have other people come on here and give their professional opinions on other cards from over 100 years old based deductive reasoning and common sense. No absolute proof at all and we take their word based on area of expertise and opinion.

r/
Frank

I think we all have said we see what Brett is seeing. If we didn't we wouldn't be saying it could be JJ; we would be saying we don't think there is any chance it is him.

As to why it might not be him, the answer is simple. There is simply not enough detail to rule out other players who bear similar enough resemblance. In regard to ankle wraps, method of sliding, etc., again how can we know there aren't other players that wear ankle wraps or have similar sliding methods? Since all these players are on the same team, how do we know they don't have a trainer who encourages use of ankle wraps, or a coach who instructs his players to use a certain method of sliding? As Mark said, and I agree, no one who does photo ID in a serious way could at this point conclude beyond a reasonable doubt it must be Joe Jackson.

there is a slim chance that the player sliding in the picture has the same cheekbones structure and chin as Jackson does when relaxed. Look at the lines that run from his nose down the sides of his face to his chin. Jackson also had a sunken area under one of his eyes that to me makes it impossible for that face on the card to be him. Even if he was gritting his teeth while bearing down on the bag his face would not look as aged and old as it does in the T202 pic. The ears do not match up either, at least not the way I see them, so I don't know why that is still being argued. The player that is sliding is not Jackson, but is someone who could have looked similar in uniform and was older than he was ( my opinion). The white "sock" or wrap may have been a support for an injury, but I was also told last night that it could have been worn by the team captains or used in that manner. Can you see his left leg through the dirt....I can't tell, but it doen't really look like all dirt there. I think you can see some of his left leg and shin perhaps. Every player slides almost the same if they are going in feet first anyway, so for Brett to say that it is a "Jackson" slide is not right either. I slide that way playing softball , and I'm sure a lot of other guys know what I'm talking about. you put your target leg out, tuck your other leg under and trail one hand behind you. It's the way sliding is taught to 6 year olds. I think the fact that some on this board now want it to be Jackson so bad that they are not willing to "see" anything different.

1911
 

Jax hit .408 in 1911. If this is a 1912 issue, and the pic was Jax, wouldn't he likely have been identified as other middle photos of stars were identified?