Yeah Kevin...I asked the same question in a different thread. It seems like everybody is tired of talking about it. But I thought that one looked similar...and it has the sock too. I think there should be an honest effort to identify every player pictured in all center panels...not just say that one in Joe Jax, then tire of the conversation.

Mac

HOLY CRAP I think you're right!!!! I initially overlooked this one and now that I just went back and looked at this card closer, it definitely appears to be the same player (Shoeless Joe) who's on the "Lord Catches His Man" card with identical facial features, expression, and the tell-tale white wrap on his right ankle only. Now that I just went through all 76 center panel photos in this set with a magnifying glass, these are the only 2 that I believe are Joe Jackson (with the other one already being proven). There are about a dozen or so Cleveland players total on the center panels and most of them can be dismissed because they either mention the specific player's name on the back, are pre-1911 photos in old uniforms from before Shoeless Joe got to Cleveland, or you get a good look at the player's face and can tell that it's clearly NOT Shoeless Joe, or you CAN'T see the player's face whatsoever to get any type of positive ID. You are correct my friend, it looks like you've found the second and last card in the set that can be identified as featuring a young Shoeless Joe Jackson!

Does this mean another 500 posts?:(

Greg, are you undertaking the research again? :D

Well I would hate to annoy Barry and Ted so I will pass the torch.

Just make a post in the "other" Joe Jackson thread and all will be well.

No way buddy... If you try to get out I'm pulling you right back in! I couldn't have done this without you on the first one, and now we need you more than ever.

Think it just takes me making a post anywhere, truth me told.

Holy ****; what a thread
 

I have now finally caught up after spending the last 20 minutes reading this thread from beginning to end

1) For the most part on a thread this long, we have stayed within the bounds of cards. Congrats to all concerned

2) My personal instinct for the penny it is worth; is that Greg (Brett giving credit to others) did great detective work and the photo *IS* JJ. Having said that, I can see why skeptics are not sure and there is not 100 percent agreement.

3) A couple of points that have come up during this thread
A) The question was raised about how something could not be discovered for a long time. The answer is, sometimes we ALL miss things.
About six years now, I received an email about a word misspelled on the back of the Nolan Ryan rookie card. Now, that card has been sought after for years by many collectors and until a gentleman from Arkansas, IIRC pointed out the error with an email; that spelling error was unknown for nearly 40 years. When I was writing my errors and variations column for Beckett, I never got as much response to a column as I did to that one. I would receive maybe 5-10 emails per column; on the Ryan column I probably received 100 emails to which I had to explain that this was an error in 1968; it was never corrected and thus no extra value.
Thus it is entirely possible; although Lee mentioned some hobby circles had already discussed this; that this was a Joe Jackson photo in the middle of that card had never been fully realized.

B) Unlike Bob, we did mention at times when cameos were part of a card. I just checked the 1971 Chris Short listing and Beckett does mention in what was called the "continuation" line that Pete Rose is leading off second. And Beckett does have a slightly increased value for the 1971 card. I checked the prices of the 1970 and 72 Chris Short in Beckett and those cards are commons in that set.
That does not mean Beckett is still correct or that Bob is correct; in this case it was two different people making a decision as to whether the Pete Rose added value -- Bob said no; I said yes in those days.

4) We all need to keep an open mind

Regards
Rich

Thanks to everybody who's said this, but I can't take credit that I don't deserve. I simply "uncovered" that it was him by being observant and recognizing his face and other body features in the photo. The real "detective" work was done by Greg and others on this board who found old newspaper photos and more documenting this event and PROVING what I had strongly believed.

I agree with pretty much everything you said and the collectors will decide what it's worth. Some may feel this card is nothing special, while others believe it's the greatest discovery since sliced bread. Personaly I think it's somewhere in between. While it would be better if he had a side-panel card in this set or a T205 or T206, he doesn't, and so this is all we have of Shoeless Joe in the way of a T card (not to mention the scarcity and ridiculously high prices of his other cards) making me believe that this card will DEFINITELY go up in value and become much more desireable than the common it has been for the last 100 years.

If the center panel read "Jackson Out at Third" we would be talking about a very valuable baseball card.

Sounds like a photoshop job for Wonka.

True Barry, but if it said "Jackson Out at Third" we never would have had all this fun!

Being as a lot of people were wondering what this discovery would do for the value of the card, the PSA 4 "Lord Carches His Man" card that I put on Ebay last week just sold for $450. I believe that once it becomes commonly known to everybody that this and the "Schaefer on First" card feature Shoeless Joe they'll permanently sell for around $500-$1,000 in EX condition.

$450, you done well!

It will be interesting to see what this card does over time. PSA 4 commons are normally $80 cards so that is a huge premium, Brett. Not quite a Cobb premium but pretty close.

Thanks man. That's why I didn't want to sell it to you or anybody else beforehand because I didn't want to rip anybody off or short-change myself. By the way, I can't believe that my first ever post here ended up being the only one to go over 20,000 views.

I read this entire thread. It almost ended in a train wreck but turned out ok.

Good stuff and I bet this card gets recognized a Joe Jackson card by the hobby as a whole.

If you're up for it, Don, you should also read the threads that this one sparked, particularly a couple that were started solely because of how much attention this one received. (T-card envy, I think they call it.)

Any links? Thanks,

I found this one to be pretty entertaining, on oh-so-many levels:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=124210

And we all learned how to play the Gotcha game too.

My curiosity getting the best of me
 

I figured it was worth an effort to do some research on the other T202, Milan McBride Schaefer On First, which some suggest depicts a sliding Jackson. I figured it was even more of a long shot that I would come up with anything definitive as the image merely shows a Cleveland player being held at first--hardly something that makes the paper, right? I read through all the articles of the 11 games Washington played in Cleveland. Only 1 provided any information which loosely supports the possibility that Jackson is the player sliding on that T202. Below is a HUGE scan of that article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer from the game of May 21, 1911. Of the 11 games these two teams played in Cleveland this is the only one which has an image from the game. Is it possible that headlines from the Cleveland Plain Dealer influenced 2 center panel images? Will let you all draw your own conclusions. And if so, is it Jackson or Graney sliding?

http://botn.com/images/May 21 1911 Naps.jpg

Great research, and thanks for posting the scan link.

Greg - thanks for doing the research!

wow, i missed this thread. some people just don't subscribe to the theory "simplest explanation is usually the correct one" (google call it occam's razor)...but i guess when you're right, you're right!

nice job Greg
 

Interesting that Graney is also wearing the white half-sock from a game played in 1911. Also interesting that Graney made it to at least second base in the game from which your prior newspaper photo of JoeJax appeared. Did you say you had read the play by play from that game? If so, was Graney ever retired at 3B?

EDITED TO ADD: Never mind. I read the game story and Graney was not retired at 3B. In fact, no other runners were retired at 3B except for JoeJax on the smash to short.

Hi Todd,

Thank you. In the other game against the White Sox, Graney went 1 for 3 with a walk. The play by play did not mention the at bat which resulted in a hit. It did cover the at bat in which Graney was walked. It states "Graney stole second on the same ball but hesitated about going to third and when he made a belated start he was headed off and retired, Payne, Lord to Zeider." This at bat was in the 3rd inning and the article states only two other players touched 2nd base in the game. One of them was Jackson in the put out at 3rd. Not sure of the other.

The other was Easterly, who hit a double play ball that forced Lajoie (who hit the ball that got JoeJax out) at second, but who advanced to second on a wild relay throw. Next guy up hit a comebacker, and was thrown out at first.

So, if the t202 photo came from this game, only one guy was out at third for Cleveland, and that was JoeJAx.

Wasn't the famous Conlon photo of Cobb sliding into third taken in 1909? I remember reading it was 1909. So if it is, and that photo from 1909 appears in the center of the T202, who's to say that the photo on this T202 was taken from the year before? There is absolutely no way to determine and extremely little chance it is Joe Jax. You guys have limited it down to one single game in one year, but how do you know the photo was even taken in 1911? What would suggest it was? There are countless cards in countless sets from the time that reused old photos. Clearly this set has in some cases.

I believe it was determined that Harry Lord would not have played for Chicago until the last two months of 1910, and that the Indians did not host the White Sox during that two month stretch, such that the photo was from 1911.

Now all these cards on Ebay have them tagged as "Shoeless Joe" cards. Streeeeeeeetch. Just saying.

and JOEJAX would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids! Jinkies!

I can't believe that I didn't read this thread sooner ... Actually I skimmed some of it so please excuse any redundancies ...
the facts that that there is no side panel of JJ in the set is not explained by the fact that the side panels are with 1 exception* were limited to cards in the T205 set (the portraits were apparently created for that set ) and JJ was not included in that set. The T205 set drawings in turn would not have included JJ since he was not in the majors in 1910.
The center photos don't always identify the people in the pictures they often focus on whomever the title references and talk about him. Here the title player was Harry Lord so his "victim" in the play was not identified. The same holds true of the Elberfeld center photo cards.
I think someone may have noted this before but many of the photos in the T202 set appear in other places and at least one (the most famous one) was taken by Charles Conlon so perhaps it is possible to figure out from somewhere else -- some photo book or archive -- who Lord was tagging.

One other thought -- it stands to reason that the photos in the set (there are 76 of them as I recall) were not taken at different games. So maybe the mystery can be solved (or at least further illuminated) by figuring out which games between the Cleveland and the Chisox were in other photos (if there are any) in the set....
Anyway over the weekend I'm going to look at my T202s and see if I can add anything to this project.





----
* Smokey Joe Wood whose debut was in 1911 was even more celebrated than JJs (among other reasons: he played for Boston not Cleveland)

Harry Lord joined the White Sox on August 9th 1910 and appeared in 44 games for them that season, every game from 101 to 156. In all 44 games he played third base. Of these 44 games, the White Sox played Cleveland 4 times. According to Baseball-Reference, Lord played in each game.

There was a double header on September 5th.
Then a 2 game series was played over October 1st and 2nd.

This photo could be from any of those four games. Joe Jackson made his debut for Cleveland on July 30th and played in 20 games that year. Did he play in any of these four games? I don't know but you would have to if you were going to say Joe Jax was caught at third in 1910 as well.

not exactly
 

The four 1910 White Sox-Indians games you cite were all played in Chicago. The photo depicted on the T202 card shows the Cleveland player in a home uniform, meaning the game was played there. Harry Lord did not play for the White Sox in Cleveland in 1910--see my last post. Hence, the game depicted on the card took place in 1911, as again, Harry Lord was not a Chicago third baseman IN CLEVELAND until that year.

You're right. The plot thickens.

It's already been figured out and documented earlier in this post from a 1911 Cleveland newspaper picture. Look back through this thread and you'll see it.

Another photo similarity?
 

Wow. I lurk every couple of months to see what has been happening. This thread is wild. I tried to clean up the article photo a bit with Lightroom and photoshop to see if there was any other detail. The major wrinkle in the right sleeve is visible in both photos. It looks like the interpretation that the sun was high is correct and the newspaper photo does seem to show Lord's shadow cast over the foot and the knee. There may be evidence of the white wrap just passed Lord's leg while the rest is covered in shadow.

Just another interpretation. Fascinating thread!!

Nice additional work Rob. I appreciate the help I've gotten from you and everyone else throughout this post. Because of our collective effort I can now tell people with 100% certainty that I'm the guy who discovered what is now known as a "new" Shoeless Joe Jackson card... and that 's pretty cool. Thanks.

If you discovered some modesty, that would be pretty cool too.

Wait, what???

I'm sorry if I'm not understanding this correctly and it was explained earlier in the thread. I just glanced at the last few posts to see why the hell it was bumped to the top of the board again.

So, what does that newspaper photo have to do with the image on the T202??? It's clearly not the same photo (if this was already pointed out I apologize) and it's not evidence of anything other than Joe Jackson actually wore a proper Cleveland uniform. How does the newspaper fit in as a piece of "evidence" for this "discovery" that was worthy of over 600 posts?

-Ryan

I'll take a stab
 

Ryan, these are the arguments:

1. The T202 shows Lord of Chicago tagging a Cleveland player at a game played in Cleveland. Harry Lord did not play for the ChiSox in Cleveland until 1911. Thus the t202 card shows game action from 1911.

2. The photo is from a 1911 game at Cleveland against the White Sox in which Harry Lord was the third baseman for Chicago, and Jackson was tagged out at third. The accompanying story confirms that Joe Jackson was the only Clevelander to be retired at 3b that day.

3. The photo and the card image were taken at the same stadium, and the angle of the two photos was very similar--not unusual given where photogs were allowed to position themselves in foul territory.

4. There are remarkable similarities in at least the fielder's uniform and the characteristics of the base to suggest that these photos were taken moments apart.

5. JoeJax was one of only a few Indians (apparently) to wear that white half-sock in 1911.


To be more certain, we could analyze the other ten games played between these two teams in Cleveland that year, to see if other Indians were retired in a tag play at third with Harry Lord manning the base. The play does not appear to be a caught stealing, given the position of Lord's feet to the runner and base, so we are left with a throw from an infielder or outfielder to 3b. That is not a common play, but not freakishly rare either. Then, if such other tag plays occurred, there might be the matter of the sock too, although I suppose any player could have been wearing that type of sock on that particular day for whatever reason. Still, from what's been provided so far, it seems more likely than not that the t202 shows Joe.

Glancing at the last few posts on a 600 plus post is a very reasonable approach to getting an understanding the content of a thread. In fact I do the same thing when I pick up a novel to read. I just go to the last page. Boy does that save time and I can read a few dozen a day.

I don't want to make you any angrier than you already are, though I am not entirely sure that is possible, but the last part of this thread was discussing a second T202 which may contain an image of Jackson. So this thread contains 2 different newspaper photos and 2 different T202s. Maybe once you get your blood pressure down you can identify the card and newspaper image to which you are referring.

It was mentioned early in this thread that several collectors had believed for years that the 202 contained a photo of Jackson.. so discovered is a bad choice of words :eek:
Shined a light on it would probably be more appropriate! ;)

Marty, all I know is that until this post was started nobody openly mentioned it as Shoeless Joe on the internet, in print, or anywhere else and now that's all changed. To those who say I'm immodest or errogant... all I can say is that I'm very proud to make a contribution to the hobby I love and maybe I've been a little over-exuberant about it.:o

Brett, ya done good ... now stop tootin' your own horn. :D:D:D

I agree, 100% !!!

Jim,

Just maybe we should do a poll, eh???

Brett,
I think you definately have opened a window.. good job.

The White Sox played at Cleveland 11 times throughout the year. Because a photo was found from ONE game that sort of resembles the play seen on the card, which is gneric because all it shows is someone sliding into third, and in my opinion the aggressive slide Jackson is making in the newspaper photo is far different from the casual looking slide on the T202, that does not mean that this photo came from that game. There were 10 other games in which a player could have been out at third. To me, the newspaper photo in no way resembles the T202 photo.

Wanted to add: thinking about it logically. If the newspaper headline from the day that photo was supposedly taken names Joe Jackson, who hit 408 in 1911, wouldn't it be logical that if it was in fact Jackson from that play and game in particular, he would then be named on the T202 as the sliding player? If it were a star, wouldn't he be named? I highly doubt if Honus Wagner or Nap Lajoie were depicted in a center panel that they would simply be reported as "the runner."

This is an interesting point.

By 1911 only 16 players had ever hit 400. Jackson and Cobb both did it that year. I know it was Jackson's first full season, but these cards were obviously produced after the 1911 season and he had just become an elite 400 hitter. If he were on a center panel, he would have been named. Cobb appears on 2 center panels and he is named on both of them.

While you have a point, wading through all the chest thumping and 'oh, look at me' drivel that makes up half the thread, is it any wonder that people might just give up and ask for a summary?

For reasons unknown to most, except Ted Z, Jackson did not appear on many of the T card issues whereas Cobb did.

Yes but if he were to be pictured on the front of one I don't understand how he wouldn't be identified. He was a star. He'd just finished second to Cobb for the batting title. I can't see any scenario in which if his image were to appear on a card he would simply be noted as "the runner." Like I said, if Wagner were to appear in a picture on a center panel I highly doubt he wouldn't be identified.

People are claiming this photo was taken the same day as the newspaper photo posted earlier. The newspaper made it a point to identify Jackson in what was I guess a crucial play of the game. If the photo on the T202 was taken that day and during that same play, why would Jackson not be identified?

The player's permission is needed in order for a company to promote their product, nationally. That involves contracts and compensation. Neither of which are required when appearing in your team's local newspaper.

In view of later history, maybe "Shined a black light on it . . . ."

Packs,
 

While your point is relevant, it's hardly dispositive. If Joe was such a rising star incapable of omission, why does he have no t202 side panel of his own?
Also, it is remarkably coincidental that the players on the side panels of the card in question were Lord and Tannehill, the two players involved in the play cited in the newspaper photo.

Your hypothetical is interesting, though, insofar as it mentions Wagner. I would suggest that no, they wouldn't necessarily identify Wagner if he was the one sliding. As we know, the ATC did not have Wagner's permission to use his likeness and/or such permission was withdrawn. It may very well be that they did not have Shoeless' permission either. The use of a generic action photo that does not claim to be him by name would likely not be considered an improper use, and the newspaper's identification of him by name is of course a permissible use.


I just noticed that Greg mentioned the same thing about use of a player's image. That may have alot to do with the caption making no mention of the runner's name.

Because he didn't have a T205. Since the side panels share images with that former set he could not be included on the side panel as was not in the T205 set.

well
 

that is not entirely true. Walter Blair and Joe Wood are found in t202 and not t205. It could be argued that If Shoeless was so important, he would and could have merited his own side panel.

At least one of the photos in the T202 set was taken by Conlon. When his photos are re-printed the player's rights aren't bought to re-print the photo. The photographer's rights are. So if this were simply a photo of Jackson, and not a "card" of Jackson's, which would mean adding him to a side panel and making him a part of the set, then why would they have to buy the rights to use his name as an identifier for who appears in a photo?

I'm not saying Jackson wasn't a part of the T202 set because he wasn't a star, and I'm not disputing the fact that he most likely didn't sell the rights to his image for inclusion in a set. But I'm not so sure you would need his permission to list him as appearing in a photo. Unless of course, he doesn't appear in the photo.

For example, Harry Davis is pictured shaking hands with John McGraw in a center panel and is identified. However, he does not appear in the set. Are you saying they had to buy Davis' rights to identify him in a photo and then didn't print a card of his as well? Seems highly unlikely. The only logical conclusion in my mind is that the card does not depict Jackson.

Todd I apologize as I missed the inclusion of those two. That makes the case for Joe much more fascinating in this issue. Other players are not included on the side panels however they are mentioned by name in the center panel descriptions. This set, Joe's images, and his lack of mention are an enigma.

No, they already would have had the rights to/ permission of Harry Davis--he was in t206, as were Birdie Cree and Billy Sullivan, two others identified in the back caption but missing from the end panels. Joe Jackson, by contrast, does not appear to have ever lent his permission to ATC.

I do not follow your Conlon analogy. Conlon also took virtually all of the portrait shots used in the E254 Colgan set. Are you suggesting that Colgan needed only to buy Conlon's permission to crop and use these photos, and not the players? I very much doubt that.

I have a question. The Fatima T200 cards were produced in the same factory, Factory 25 District 2 VA as the T206 cards and Jackson appears and is identified in the team photo. Did the same company that owned the rights to the T206, T205 and T202 sets also have the rights for the T200 set?

The T200 set was produced after the ATC break and at that time Fatima was a Liggett & Myers product.

Prior to that I believe all of the others were ATC issues. The more knowledgeable experts will correct me if I'm wrong.

then again
 

There may also be a more simple explanation as to why Joe (if it is him) is not identified in the photo. The caption was focused on Lord, with the write-up on him and his history. Although the text might have been added in late 1911, the photo may have been selected for inclusion much earlier--we know that most of the photos for end panels were around in 1910 or earlier. If the center photo were picked at a time when Joe Jackson was still a relative unknown quantity--say the first month of his first full season in 1911, which incidentally, is when the game was played that is included in the newpaper, there would be even less reason to identify Jackson. It is possible that there was no notation of who the runner was, and that when the text was finalized later, no one bothered to identify him.

My argument against that would be that the photo Greg found that matches the center panel is from a game in July. By that time Joe wasn't an unknown and center panel photos are included in the set up to the World Series that year. It makes no sense to me not to mention Joe unless it was a contractual situation. I find it hard to believe that the photographer would have marked his notes as the photo taken being of Lord and not also included Joe Jackson.

Tim
 

The game in the photo that identifies Jackson was from May 5, 1911. The teams played 4 games around then, 4 at the end of June (into July 1) and 4 in September. Unless it came from the last four game set, the photo was taken before half-way through Joe's first season. Now if they waited until year end to go through all sorts of photos, then I see your point. But if they already had decided on Lord and that photo earlier, I can see where the captioner would not necessarily have had reason to go back and check on the identity of the baserunner.

EDITED TO CHANGE: the September series was only three games, not four

We may be talking about two different photos and center panels. I was referencing the photo that started this thread. Greg found the companion photo for "Lord Catches His Man" in a newspaper photo from July.

I don't think so, but
 

I see the confusion, as it appears Greg was mistaken, either that or retrosheet is in error. In post 243 Greg says he got the photo from the July 6, 1911 paper, but that must be a typo--he surely meant May 6. If you blow up the story that appears with the photo, you see how ChiSox pitcher Frank Lange baffled the Indians in that game, beating them 2-1. That matches with the retrosheet site for the game played May 5th-- the Indians 20th game of the season.
http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1911/VCLE01911.htm

It is not July 6 but May 6 issue of the Cleveland Plains Dealer. Sorry guys...

Just remember
 

Only Teddy Z actually saw these players play in person :D

And Barry!

There are a lot of ways to make yourself believe it is Joe Jackson, but the logical conclusion to draw is that it is not.

I don't even think that newspaper photo resembles the T202 in the slightest. In that newspaper photo it appears as though Joe is making an aggressive slide into third. The T202 photo couldn't appear more casual.

Sorry to disagree. I truly have no dog in the fight, and could not care less if it is or is not Joe Jackson. You, on the other hand, appear to be the perpetual skeptic--i.e., you are finding whatever you can to make yourself believe it is not Joe Jackson.

Please explain how your conclusion is any more "logical" than those who claim it is JoeJax. And please outline your qualifications to state that the photo and the image in t202 do not resemble each other "in the slightest", when many, many others here would say otherwise. Yours is an opinon that appears to be no more qualified and perhaps less so than others. You are welcome to it, of course, but to intone that others are being fanciful in theirs and are being "illogical" smacks of condescension to me.

The photo posted has similarities, it's a Cleveland player in a Cleveland uniform being tagged out by Harry Lord at third base. So all the parralells made between it and the T202 boil down to a player in a Cleveland uniform sliding in on Harry Lord. Any photo of a Cleveland player sliding feet first into third and obscured by a 100 year old not very clear newspaper image is going to appear similar. You can't see Jackson's face in the newspaper image, so what leads you to believe it has anything to do with the T202 image? All points of reference when comparing the two boil down to uniform match ups, but those points of reference are going to be there for any photo of any player in the uniform.

What you can see in the newspaper image is that Jackson has thrown his hands up near his head, which to me suggests a pretty hard slide. What about the T202 photo would lead you to believe that the card features Jackson in a position mili-seconds before the one he ends up in on the newspaper? To me there is nothing to suggest it. The sliding player on the T202 appears to me to be casually sliding into third for an out. In the newspaper photo, Jackson looks like he was trying to make a play at third, not sliding in to be called out.

Speaking about logistics. Any way you slice it, there is always going to be a greater probability that any one person doesn't appear in an unidentified photo when there are an overwhelming amount of other people it COULD be. So speaking purely in numbers, there is a greater chance it is not Jackson than it is. That is why it is logical to assume it is not Jackson. It has nothing to do with intelligence and I'm not claiming I know the answer, but looking at the scenario logically, I don't see how you could find it is Jackson other than wanting it to be.

Also, if it were Jackson and the set owners wanted to feature Jackson on a card, why would they choose to and not identify him? Because they don't have his rights and this is a way to slip past that. I can buy that. But the set also doesn't feature Wagner, probably due to rights, and if they wanted to I highly doubt they would print a photo of him and just label him as a "player" or "runner." It was suggested that the photos were chosen earlier in the season before Jackson was a star, but I don't think that is the case because the photos go all the way up to the World Series. So, you have an elite hitter who is bursting onto the baseball scene and has just given the great Cobb a run for his money for batting title, but the photographer fails to label the photo as being of Jackson and you slip his image into your set anonymously? Why? If this set were produced today and Pujols were to appear in a center panel but not license himself for an individual panel, do you think he would just be a "runner" or would he be Albert Pujols? Or would he just not appear in the set?

There are astonishing similarities between the photos. To my mind it is highly unlikely they are not of the same play.

Packs said: All points of reference when comparing the two boil down to uniform match ups, but those points of reference are going to be there for any photo of any player in the uniform.

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

No - the very jagged right leg pinstripe (due to wrinles in the pant-leg material) of the 3rd baseman on the card and the newpaper photo match perfectly - thats pretty close to proof.

If you disagree - then your challenge is to find two photos of different crouched players with jagged pant-leg pin stipes that match as these do.