Leon, it's as definitive as it's going to get brother. Glad I was able to contribute something worthy to your board. Sorry to everybody else for coming accross like an asshole lately, but I knew I was right when I first posted this. Thanks to the help of other people on here it's now as evident as evident can be. If somebody is still saying "no" right now they're either blind, stubborn, or in denial (possibly all of the above) in which case their credibility has just gone right down the crapper.

Brett
 

Welcome to the board and I look forward to your next thought provoking thread.

Rawn

I would rather have the T200 as well.

I don't think anyone is saying "no", but not everyone is saying 100% "yes". With that said, I do think it is probably him and thanks for a great thread.

It's 100% unless people haven't read this entire thread or are just out of touch with reality. Remember, there's still a large percentage of society who deny that dinosaurs existed or that the Holocaust happened.

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1 http://www.net54baseball.com/images/...s/viewpost.gif
Assume that sllding into 3rd base is a serious felony, punishible by a lengthy prison sentence, perhaps even death. The witnesses to the event in question have all died or mysteriously vanished. All we have is the image from the card.

JJ is arrested. Should he be convicted based on that image?

The question was put in terms of the card only for a reason. Based on the card plus the Tim/Paul photo newpaper photo analysis, JJ may be in trouble at least in civil court.

As to the newpaper photo, let me try to provide a possible explanation for the socks and shadows (if this has already been done, sorry but I didn't see it). This needs to be justified and it isn't artist overpaint:

From the card and the very small shadow on the back of Lord's right foot we can see that the sun is high above and somewhat to our right. The sock on his back leg is partly shadowed by his own body. In the newpaper photo, he has moved that left foot forward - more under his body - hence it is more shadowed.

As to the slider's high leg - the one we see with the wrap on the card - we do see the wrap a little bit in the newpaper photo - just to our left of Lord's right leg - a thin strip of white - then it goes black perhaps due to the shadow of Lord's body as he slides under him. The extreme black and white is what we get because this is a half-tone image.

Brett - your off base here - the standard convention for cataloging T202s is based on the end panels and the title of the center panel. Consider the Lajoie I posted about above. He is even mentioned in the text on the back, but that card is not cataloged as Lajoie (cataloged, as are all T202s, by the title, this one is "A Great Batsman"), and is not part of any "Lajoie master set." It's just a T202 that has Lajoie in the center panel with another player; same here. In fact that one has much better credentials then this one for what you are suggesting - the back uses his name and the text on the back focuses on the batter (as opposed to the one in question which focuses on the 3B).

To suggest this card "features" Joe Jax assumes the manufactures intended him to be the centerpiece. Bob's verbiage is much more apt - he is a cameo on this card - the printers of this card wouldn't have cared if Joe Jax or any other player was being thrown out at 3rd.

Comparing photo identification on a baseball card with the existence of dinosaurs or the Holocaust is a tad ridiculous.

I agree with all the comparisons to T200 prices, I think the intitial hype and excitement will bring 5X to the T202 and after the novelty wears off will drop to about 3x.

Brett, it was a great observation, and lots of people have contributed to a fascinating discussion and analysis. There was absolutely no need for your contentiousness though -- much better to be a consensus builder and treat people politely and with respect than to just dismiss them and mock them and taunt them. You continue to do yourself a disservice with that 'tude.

Thanks Greg, but what should I be gracious about? I brought something huge to this board and instead of appreciation I got a bunch of pseudo-experts on high-horses doubting me and just trying to be contrarians. You admitted that you agree with me and you're smarter for it. I'm the type of person who will quickly apologize or admit whenever I'm wrong, but I usually won't take such a strong and arrogant stance unless I KNOW I'm right. This is one of those instances. Thanks for at least being one of the people on this board who have logic and common sense.

Thanks Rob. I was insulted by the Holocaust analogy too. Not appropriate.

Thanks buddy but I have nowhere to go but down from here. :D

Ya think?

You may well be right about the card.

You are 100% dead wrong about your attitude.

Marshall Barkman the Fourth??

Brett,

I'm not sure why as this thread has progessed you see the need to go to arrogant and condescending.

A significant number of board members have opined that in their view it very possibly might be Jackson, in fact likely is him, but there exists a reasonable possibility it is not. In fact, this view arguably reflects the stated consensus of this board. I hope that view is not a "no" by your way of looking of things, because if so I think it's a bit disrespectful to characterize so many board member as "blind, stubborn or in denial." In regard to your phrases "it's as definitive as it's going to get"/it's now as evident as evident can be", clearly it is not. I think most of us would feel that finding this same image in a newspaper archive with a period annotation entitled "Jackson out at third" would make the ID significantly more definitive.

So everyone that agrees with you is smarter then they were a couple days ago? Also why does being right = having to be arrogant about it?

You contributed to the board with a great thread; some people think you are 100% right, others think you are strongly on to something. Why can't you leave it at that? Each post you have recently made has been more absurd then the last.

No prob. I don't understand why that would have to be brought up in a vintage card forum to prove a point.

Call the teacher over, the kids are fighting at recess again. This is one of the best posts of the, as yet, short year.

Rawn

I think this thread has gone about as far as it can, and at this point it is beginning to regress. Hopefully this discussion will end soon. What more can any of us say?

Relax, I'm more jewish than matzo ball soup. I used an extreme example to show that it's not surprising that people would be in denial about something as trivial as this when there are still brain-dead morons out there who refuse to acknowledge something as major as the two examples I used.

Well, he hasn't threatened to sue himself... yet.


We still have that to look forward to! :D


(Brett, that's not a shot at you, but is poking fun at another board member who did exactly that.)

At least Barkman's assholishness was tinged with humor. This guy just appears to be an asshole, period.

That anyone can still say there is doubt is astonishing. The Joe Jackson-specific wrinkle on the left side of his face and the completely identical pant-line fold on Lord in the newspaper photo make this a done deal, and that's not even bringing up all the circumstantial evidence. Anyone who still isn't certain this is Jackson is in some sort of denial.

Can we require all "newer" board members to state their occupation and current geographic location?

We can't keep blaming everything on New York lawyers, can we? And Land Surveyors from Hawaii just doesn't sound mean enough!

In Iran perhaps.

Is that where Mel Gibson's father lives.

Sort all the threads by "Views" and this thread is #7!

Sort by "Replies" and it's #5!

The analysis of the T202 has ended. The remainder of this thread is devoted to personal attacks.

sorry if I came across as harsh Johnny. I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread and all the evidence that has been discovered to support both sides fo the issue. I apologize to you if my tone seemed out of sorts.
This has been more interesting than the Ty Cobb back discussions in my opinion. I think if anything, this thread will get collectors to take a closer look at all their cards from now on. I have several T202s and to be honest, I look at the side panels more than the pictures in the middle most of the time.

Interesting thread, it is likely Joe after all but I retain the right to change my opinion if more evidence is found.

That being said, what people like Brett and Sportscardtheory (I have no idea who that is) have to understand is that while this one ended up being likely correct (I'm still not 100% convinced) for every one that is correctly id'ed there are 20-30 that are totally bogus. You guys were convinced that it was Joe prior to any of the evidence Greg put forth (which is the ONLY thing in my mind that leads me to believe it might me him) so your bias was obvious from the start. Prior to the newspaper photo evrything that had been put forth as "evidence" was essentially opinion based on a blurry image that had just as good of a chance as being Terry Turner or Joe Birmingham (as opposed to Jackson).

When one is truly impartial they have to be convinced by the evidence, not the other way around--this is why Mark is so valuable to this board and the hobby. I think he is right on in his stance, he never once said "that ISN'T Joe Jackson" he was simply stating that he didn't feel comfortable saying it "was 100% Joe Jackson" because there is that small chance that it isn't (which still exists). Photo ID is an absolute...it's either him or it's not, if you say it's "likely" him then that just isn't enough for some people (got it!).

The fact that both of you have been so beligerent about the whole thing really leaves a sour taste in the mouth (at least to me). We got it 350 posts ago that you were convinced it was him (even before the newspaper photo Greg found was found) but to ridicule or be "arrogant" about this kind of stuff is petty and childish. I have been doubted by many in the past about things in this hobby that turned out to be right, but a mature person doesn't feel the need to do the whole "I told you so" thing!

The way Mark approaches photo id is the "standard of care" (to use a medical term). Jumping to conclusions about an id from a photo is done all the time and 99% are wrong. Take your praise as having possibly added a card to the JoeJax master checklist like an adult, no need for anymore jabs, shots or holocaust references (see Godwin's Law).

-Rhett

Why are you calling me belligerent when I haven't been? And why are you saying I had my mind made up from the beginning when I didn't?

Well put, Rhett.

No worries Dave, I'm still laughing about the ufo, bigfoot, and Jack the Ripper comments that was pretty funny. I think this whole observation has been amazing but the excitement is already wearing off a little, but definately a great find in a set seldomly talked about.

Rhett takes over the lead for best post of the thread.

Great post Rhett.

Or Alabama...

Great Post, Rhett. I have learned in writing about the hobby to never be surprised when a long-accepted piece of hobby orthodoxy is overturned with new evidence or when a new discovery pops up--that's what makes it fun...

Yeah, great job making stuff up, Rhett. POST OF THE YEAR!!! I'm surprised he could still type on his computer while riding his high-horse.

"That anyone can still say there is doubt is astonishing.

This has absolutely nothing to do with law. Majority rules in these situations.

I'm sorry that you can't understand it, it's about burden of proof. Everyone has done an exceptional job proving that it is Jackson, while some people are wasting everyone's time saying that they...

The thing I don't like about this, is that "Mark" isn't saying anything at all. He's saying he doesn't know, which is the same thing as saying nothing. The only evidence he can possibly use to...

That's a cop-out. It HAS to be someone, and if you say it's not Joe Jackson, then who is it? IT HAS TO BE SOMEONE.

Nope. It's your lack of comprehension that sucks. I was only asking who you think the player is, and apparently you don't have an answer. Many have shown that it certainly could be him, (and the...

Why are you so angry? lol Light some candles...take a bubble bath...listen to whale songs.

Him carrying-on about UFOs and chiding everyone simply because they are curious is SOOO substantive."



All statements by you in this thread and essentially a case-study in belligerency (is that a word?)

To me, the fact that anybody would still deny that this is Joe Jackson is a tad ridiculous.

Please answer this:

Anyone that is not 100% sure that it is Jackson is absolutely wrong and as you put in an earlier post "brain-dead"?

Good Stuff RHETT!

note to self;

never pizz off Rhett. :rolleyes:

Hell, I'm pretty sure it's in the Texas history books that way.

It's very easy to quote me without using context. You didn't even complete my sentences in a pathetic attempt to make them seem worse than they are. POST OF THE YEAR! lol How is the air up there???

The 'tude has been brought on from people doubting me when I'm telling them what I KNOW. I agree with your overall opinion though. If I'm still welcome on this board when this thread is over I think you'll see a kinder, gentler, more playful version of me. It's just that I'm very passionate about this issue now and I don't like people confusing others just because they think they're smarter than anybody else (which they've now proven that they're definitely not).

I completely stand behind every single one of these. They weren't belligerent and most were in response to posters who WERE being belligerent. Nice try, though.

Come on Brett, you can't just walk into a room of strangers, say you KNOW something, and then get pissed off if they doubt you or hold you to proof -- which by the way you never provided; by far the best evidence was provided by Greg. Stick around, but chill.

I know it's probably not the case, but it sounds like Brett is ready to list 50 of these T202 cards on EBAY. And the fact that some people don't feel comfortable saying that it is definitively Joe Jackson is pissing him off.

As others have said, no one is saying it isn't him, they are just hesitant to say 100% that it is. There is a big difference which you are failing to see.

Have you not been following this post? The article you're suggesting is right here... http://www.botn.com/images/CPD050611.jpg

That's why this ID is more than definitive.

Brett... nice find and I am in your camp; but
You can't convince everybody. Why can't that be good enough.

When some members continued to hold out, instead of saying to each his own, you starting throwing barbs at them... not cool!

This sounds like it belongs in Playboy's Playmate Data Sheet. :)

That's fine. At this point all I want is for people to realize that we just discovered a new Joe Jackson card together. I've been pretty sure about it for a while and I recently decided to share it with everybody here. If I were doing it for selfish reasons I would have scooped up the 3 that I saw on ebay first.

Besides, anybody who has a picture of Lajoie (my all-time favorite player) on their avatar is a friend of mine.

Correct. Anybody who accepts the fact that it's Joe Jackson is smarter than someone who doesn't because it's now known to be true. In regards to the arrogance, I already tried to do it the other way and it didn't work. If people don't respect my findings and don't respect the work of SEVERAL others on this board who busted their asses to uncover the truth then they're the arrogant ones and I'll show them no respect in return.

As Andy Warhol once famously said...
 

Hey Brett. That has been a very long 15 minutes, but I think your time is about up.

Certainly enjoyed it though.

Jimmy

Maybe so, but at least I'm an asshole who just contributed something pretty big to the hobby. I can't tell you how many private messages I've gotten from people who told me not to worry about all the doubters who are just jealous that a first time poster came on here and added something much greater than you probably ever will.

Move over Jefferson Burdick :)

At this point, yes.

Actually, I think this link is more appropriate...what a thread!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7CBKT0PWFA

According to Lee Behrens you're not the first person to think this was Jackson...and seriously there have been very few (if any?) on this thread who don't believe that it could be Jackson...you have to realize that absent the ACTUAL PHOTO FROM THE TIME PERIOD there are going to be some doubts. I may believe that it is Jackson (and I do), and I might bet my life savings on it....but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

I would suggest that if you do want to stick around here after this thread dies down and contribute further (and I hope you will) that you tone down the MB3 imitation.

I think it was crystal clear to everybody except perhaps you that the image I was referring to was the IDENTICAL image to that on the T202 middle panel. Greg's research, while terrific, generated a DIFFERENT image.

Now that's not very nice. I think a simple "thank you" would be more in order. In fact, I think you should be encouraging me to stick around here longer... you might learn something else interesting from me.

Good call Rick...as usual. ;)

If anyone is still interested in discussing the photo I would like to repeat a question that Paul asked earlier.

"Forget for a minute the identity of the player sliding into 3rd base. I think the pertinent question now is:
Were these two photos taken a split second apart? If the evidence indicates they are photos from the same play at third, then we know the baserunner is the same in both photos."

For those that sill aren't sure if the photo is Joe, do you doubt that these two photos were taken during the same play on the same day?

Don't worry I won't call you an idiot if you disagree with me. :)

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_UrSHvogCrmM/S_...0Updated25.jpg

Barkman could give this dickhead lessons in civility. Pathetic.

when I first looked at the newspapper photo i thought now way was this the same play.. the more I look at it the more it looks like it is from teh same play...

is this a case of my mind seeing what it wants to see.???? :cool:

It seems highly likely, almost certain, that it is the same. I still am somewhat surprised Joe's arm could have moved that much in the microinstant between the two photos, but the chances that there was another play at third base with so many similarities seems remote.

Marty IMO no, given the observations made by Paul, Mark, and myself.

1) The photos as pointed out before were taken from two different angles. The bottom photo was further up the 3rd baseline than the top.

2) Lord's right hand, Lord's head, and Joe's right arm all have moved proportionally from one photo to the next. Joe's right leg, Lord's feet, and Joe's head have all maintained their position. Nothing is out of place from one photo to the next.

3) The angles surrounding the bag including the curvature on the home plate side are identical.

In addition -
4) The dark pattern on the side of 3rd base matches in both photos.
5) Lord's right knee is bending forward in the second photo compared to the first. This is consistent with the 2nd photo being taken a split second after the first as Lord bends down closer to tag the runner.

Mark's comments:
As to the newpaper photo, let me try to provide a possible explanation for the socks and shadows (if this has already been done, sorry but I didn't see it). This needs to be justified and it isn't artist overpaint:

From the card and the very small shadow on the back of Lord's right foot we can see that the sun is high above and somewhat to our right. The sock on his back leg is partly shadowed by his own body. In the newpaper photo, he has moved that left foot forward - more under his body - hence it is more shadowed.

As to the slider's high leg - the one we see with the wrap on the card - we do see the wrap a little bit in the newpaper photo - just to our left of Lord's right leg - a thin strip of white - then it goes black perhaps due to the shadow of Lord's body as he slides under him. The extreme black and white is what we get because this is a half-tone image.

Is there a Pulitzer Prize for the hobby ? This is the most amazing discovery since sliced bread !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuWD7VrHquU

This has been a great thread, is there anyway to turn this back into a fun thing? :o

Peter at first glance Joe's arm stands out but when you look at Lord's right hand and his head you will see that they have moved a similar distance between the two photos.

Yet other things pointed out stay at consistent angles and positions.

What's missing to me is anything drastically out of place or shape. Given the few number of games played in Cleveland between these two teams I think the odds that there was another play at third that would so closely mirror the other is a real real long shot.

What if the newspaper image was snapped at the time which Joe's body was no longer moving in his slide? You are assuming the movement of the body sliding coincides with the movement of the arm. The movement of the slide is pure momentum where as the movement of the arm is kinetic. We don't know if it was a fraction of a second or a full second between shots. Don't know about you but it does not take me more than a second to life my arm from my that distance. The arm is in the same position in both images.

Wouldn't he have slid hard enough that his momentum sould have carried him at least into the bag? Seems unlikely the second image was snapped when he was just lying there short of the bag. But who knows.

The object is to slide hard enough to make it to the bag. Does that happen all the time?

Not sure it is reasonable to expect a photographer to be able to coordinate with their subject matter that closely. This was not a posed image.

Joe hadn't completed the slide as the point of the newspaper photo given it's description was to show that Lord tagged Joe before he touched the bag.

Time to find you a hobby.

I collect 58 Mantles. Got one?

Haven't seen one in a while.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/calvindog/2918386347/" title="1958 Topps by calvindog65, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3247/2918386347_ee2ebed13c_o.jpg" width="450" height="766" alt="1958 Topps" /></a>

Your findings? - you found nothing. Greg found the newspaper photo that provides the only real evidence.

As to your contribution, it pales in comparison to the identifications made in the past by many of the posters who have not agreed with your approach and the certitude of your unsupported initial conclusion.

You see, what you have done here does not take any particular skill or insight. A blurry image that resembles a particular player to almost everyone is probably that player - we all know that. But that won't be and shouldn't be accepted as fact without further evidence, which you did not nor did you know how to provide.

I think Joe was on the grassy knoll in Dallas in '63.