It's proof that whenever Harry Lord is wearing his uniform and bends down the pinstripes on his uniform react accordingly. I'm having trouble seeing how they would ever react differently. They're on the uniform. What distinguishes his crouch so much so that you can definitively say that the newspaper photo could have not been taken any other day than the same day and play as the T202 photo? I don't see it.

In the T202 the Cleveland player's right arm is at his waist. In the newspaper photo, Jackson's right arm is at his forehead. In both photos he has yet to reach the bag. So how did he get his hand from his waist to his head so fast? These photos would have had to have been snapped in direct succession for them to be the same play. But the positioning of the right arms suggests otherwise.

Packs,

Really. Truly. You do yourself a tremendous disservice when you start to argue photo analysis and identification with Mark. Please stop.

Sorry. I'm just offering my opinion. We're talking about a pretty unclear photo. I'm also not doubting his credibility at all.

As I said - try it. Get yourself some old style wool flannel baseball pants with a distinct pinstripe down the side. Crouch down and have someone take a photo. Then play catch for a while, run around, etc. Put the pants on again the next day - crouch down and take another photo. I don't think you will get the exact same pinstripe pattern as we get in the 2 images under discussion. Like any good rational argument, my assertion is stated in a manner that can be shown to be wrong if it is wrong.

>>>So how did he get his hand from his waist to his head so fast?

That has been asked and answered. Why are you saying it's too fast - I don't think it is.

Yes, I previously had that same question, and that was my one reservation, but the other evidence is so powerful that I guess one has to accept that it just doesn't take that long and that it could be explained by slightly different timing on the two photos.

All I'm saying is this. If that is a photo of Jackson on the T202, then to me it would have to be a totally different play than the one captured on the front of the newspaper. I just can't conceive how he would go from the position he's in on the T202 to the one on the front of the newspaper in just mili-seconds and in one fluid movement. To me, and this is my opinion, these are two different photos of either two different players OR the same player on different plays. Maybe it's theoretically possible for him to move his hand to his forehead, but where do you see that kind of momentum in the T202 photo? You're speculating that he COULD do it, but what about the T202 photo suggests he WOULD end up in the position he does on the newspaper? In the T202 photo the player's foot has just hit the ground and is beginning to spray up the dirt. In the newspaper photo Jackson's foot is way off the ground. If these photos were taken consecutively, then why is there no dirt thrown up in the newspaper photo? The only dirt being thrown up in the newspaper photo appears to be from his upper body. For a person's hand to go from their waist to their head in consecutive frames, there would need to be some sort of middle ground. His arm would already need to be rising or be near his head at the time of the slide. I'm no expert, but I just don't see how the player's hand could go from waist to head in consecutive frames or any indication that the player is raising his arm in the T202 photo.

As for the pinstripes, you're an expert and I value your opinion. The only thing I'm going to say is that these men are professionals. They would have practiced technique daily for hours and hours until every play became a sort of routine. Unless they make a dramatic change, a player is always going to look the same at bat or during a pitch, or turning a double play. It's been rooted in them through repetition. I'm just putting it out there, but there's a good chance Lord held the bag down in a similar position every time. That could just be his stance when the bag is being challenged. Maybe in these two instances he is in that routine and this is an example of lightning striking twice.

I guess I would disagree with you on what those pictures show, and how they could have been taken moments apart.

More importantly, I also do not agree that these plays are so routine the players will always look the same. The play in the photo was unusual--a tag play at third. Even more odd is that Joe Jackson appears to have made a bonehead play--trying to advance to third on a ball hit to shortstop. Lord's feet and body are positioned for a throw from shortstop with a straddle for tagging purposes--not a throw from second base, first base, outfield or anywhere else, and not with feet postioned for a force play. This play simply does not happen that often, and I doubt that there was a "routine" way to receive such a throw that it would look the same every time, down to the wrinkles in the uniform.

Hopefully we can eventually pull play by play or other newspaper accounts to see if this tag play happened in any of the other games played by these two teams in Cleveland that season. I note that in the box score for the 5/6 game, Harry Lord was credited with 0 putouts, so we can eliminate that game as a source for the t202 card image as well.

As to the slider's arm and hand movement - try to think about it this way. Let's say the runner was running 18 mph (a ballpark figure - close enough). During the slide he is decellerating - so he is moving at less than his running speed - less than 18 mph. It appears that from the earlier in time photo (the card) to the later in time photo (in the newspaper) he has moved a foot or two closer to 3rd base. So - in that amount of time could a human move his hand from his waist to his face? How fast would his hand have to move? Actually not that fast - his hand would have to move at very roughly the same speed as his feet. Seems pretty easy to me.

I"m not doubting the ability or possibility to move your hand, I'm doubting that the body language of the player in the T202 photo suggests the outcome shown in the newspaper photo. I know your reputation for photo identification and I don't mean to question or challenge your ability or put down the opinions of others. I just want to make that clear. All I'm trying to do is put my opinions out there and talk about what I see.

All of the body parts that change position on both Lord and Joe move proportionally from one photo to the next. All of the body parts that remain relatively stationary are in the same position in both photos. Importantly there is not an indicator that I believe you can point to from one photo to the next that is far enough out of context to discredit the stance that both photos were taken of the same play.

Since you adamant hat this is not the same play, it's time for you to show evidence that it is not. The photographic evidence points more to the same play than less. If your evidence is mainly the hand position, then it shoots holes in your opinion. Move your hand from your waist to your face. It takes a split second. Plus the angle of the photos means the hand movement is less than a waist to face distance. Please show us the evidence, photographically, can't be the same play.

Exactly. The only person who would say that it couldn't be the same sequence is just a person who is in denial at this point.

Bump.

Thanks David. I was cleaning the garage and almost missed it.

Here's my personal photographic evidence. Dismiss it if you want, maybe we could talk about, maybe some people agree. From what I see in the newspaper photo, it appears as though Joe was tagged out on his left knee/leg by Lord's right hand, which was holding the baseball. Joe's right foot is off the ground and still has not touched the bag and his left leg is most likely tucked under his right leg, making the out most likely occurring with a tag to the left knee. It doesn't appear that Lord would have tagged Joe's right leg for the out, since he is, at least to me, clearly reaching for the out with his bare right hand. Yes? No? I think yes.

In the T202 photo, it really isn't clear if Lord has the ball in his hand or his glove. What I think is clear, is that the runner's right leg is very close to the bag already and his left knee is very far away. For you to tag that runner out, it seems as though you would absolutely have to tag him on his right leg, which would contradict the out made in the newspaper photo, if we can agree that Lord is most likely holding the ball in his bare hand and reaching to tag with it in the newspaper photo. Thinking about natural progression, it seems unlikely that the runner in the T202 photo's left leg would get close enough for Lord to tag it out before his right leg hit the bag.

The newspaper says Jackson was tagged out before reaching the bag, not because he may have slid in safe and his foot came off the bag. So in the newspaper photo, Joe is being tagged. Does it like his left leg or his right leg is being tagged? To me it is the left, because Lord's right arm is making a shadow on Joe's right leg, and you can see it is not being touched. But when looking at the T202 photo, it doesn't seem like the runner's left leg could be tagged out before his right leg hit the bag, or that the natural tag for that particular play would be on the left leg, which to me suggests that the runner in the T202 was not tagged out on his left leg like Jackson was in the newspaper photo.

From the 60s song by Vicki Carr
 

Let it please be him
Oh dear God
It must be him
It must be him
Or I shall die
Or I shall die

I got to agree with packs.
 

I have this card and I have been hoping that it could be proven definitively that it is Shoeless Joe. Unfortunately, while discussing the issue with some friends, I am not sure it can be proven beyond a doubt that it is Shoeless Joe. I hope it is him, but if had to bet I would say it isn't.

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s...DeadHorse1.gif

..all in good fun chaps.

Packs - All of the questions you raise can be accounted for with the difference in angles of the two photos. At this point IMO you're grasping at very subtle differences to discredit the claim that the two photos are of the same event. If you don't want to believe the two pictures were taken of the same event that's OK, but you haven't given any definitive evidence that they are two different plays.

Given the very few opportunities for this play to have occurred between these two teams during the 1911 season, the likelihood that there would be two different plays so similar in every way is astronomical IMO.

:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d

Anything new on this front?

Only that Jax passed away half a century ago. Condolences to friends and family.

Has anyone been tracking prices on this card? Has it been selling for more since the discovery?

Thanks.

A PSA 6 just sold this afternoon on ebay for $266.

Steve

Hey everybody, I haven't been here for a little while but I just saw a PSA 5 of this card listed on ebay for a cool "buy it now" of $1,900. Pretty funny to think about what we discovered/created here a couple years ago. Anyway... I wish you all a happy, healthy New Year and I'll let you know if I come up with anymore amazing discoveries. ;)

Yeah and the seller just bought the exact card (based on the PSA number) off of ebay on the 18th and is now trying to sell it for 3x as much to the same customer base a week after winning it.

With the scarcity of Shoeless Joe cards I personally believe it should be a $1,000 card in EX condition.

I think that's WAY high. The absolute ceiling for this card in my mind is his WG4, WG5 and WG6 cards that depict only him and actually have his name on them - a much more mainstream collectible for someone wanting a Joe Jackson card. Consider, not only is he not mentioned on the T202, he's not even the first or second object of focus of the card.

I'm sure this is discussed somewhere in this massive thread, but are there any T-cards of Joe, other than the Fatima team card?

Off the top of my head there is at least the T5 Pinkerton of Jackson. There might be more too..

.

There's the T210, correct? And a T5 as Leon mentioned.

I have to agree with Matt here.
This is not and was never intended to be a "Joe Jackson" card.
The T200 would be more of a Joe Jax card to me than this one. They are similar in that they have multiple players but it at least has his name on it.

I Know I'm Going To Get Slaughtered Here!!!
 

First off let me start by saying that I am Heavydooty on EBAY! Now I know I'm gonna get murdered here but also I am not above taking advice from advanced collectors and if I get scorned, so be it! My thinking was that I thought the card would be worth about 1000.00. But if I would have asked 1000.00 I would have been offered maybe 600-700. The reason for the quick flip is because I found another card I want more and need to sell this one but I'm going to forget that now and just pull it and keep it. However, it is interesting that Shoeless Joe is on a T card and is the center panel. If his name appeared on the flip I think the card would definitely sell for alot more IMO. And I do think the card is undervalued considering JJJ appears on it. Not having his name mentioned on the card just keeps up with the whole mystique of Shoeless Joe. Now I just joined Net54 and I want to be a good member and will definitely take the ripping I'm about to receive. By the way, I find this forum really awesome!!!

Yes, how could I forget :confused: I did try to do research on the web before posting, thinking there must be a site where you can click a player's name and get a list of his cards. I thought I remembered seeing such a place many moons ago.

I think the tri-fold in question is worthy of $1,000 - if I wanted a Jackson t-card, this would be close enough. Since it's getting obvious that I could re-sell it to someone on this board for the same price, then that makes it worth $1,000. Many have argued here in the past that market value can be set by two people who have the means and will to buy :)

I have never met a single soul on this board who could not at one time or another, be labeled "flipper", so don't let that bother you. The only exception I can think of was Leon in his early collecting days - that guy would not let go of anything.

Thanks Scott!! I wish I was well off so that I could keep everything I've ever bought!!:D

I was much worse than you my first time around. I actually 'collected' T206 images. I figured that I could afford to own every card in the set at least long enough to take a scan and then sell. It was an incredible learning experience, as I kept upgrading my 'scan collection'. The only caveat I had to building this 'collection' was that I had to own the card in order to scan it.

The value of holding a multitude of actual cards in your hands for close examination cannot be understated. I still have my old scans and have burned several c.d.'s and mailed to interested collectors. I only wish I had made bigger scans.

Hi Moonlight Graham.....welcome to the club.....and,

To be, or not be....Is it, or isn't it....Shoeless Joe ? That is the question at hand.


Circumstances in favor
The backdrop is Cleveland's League Park (circa 1910-11)....Shoeless Joe's first games with Cleveland were in 1910....and, the player sliding into 3rd base
appears to have "jug-handle" ears similar to Shoeless Joe's ears....I'm sure I could think of a few more reasons that would suggest the guy in this center-
fold is Shoeless Joe.

Against
But, having said all that, why American Lithograhic never printed a Joe Jackson card (circa 1909 - 1917) is a real mystery to most vintage card collectors.
So,why would we think the guy in this centerfold is Joe ? Perhaps, Joe was "anti-tobacco" (e.g., the Wagner myth) and refused to permit ATC to portray
him in a Major (League) set.
Whatever ? ?

Anyhow, I think it's time to sell my T202 Lord/Tannehill card. Its VgEx and it would be very interesting to see what the market will bring if auctioned off.


https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...nnehill50x.jpg

https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...nehill50xb.jpg

T-Rex TED

Welcome
 

Welcome to the forum Moonlight. One thing about here at Net54, there's never a shortage of dispirate (help Barry!) opinions. And besides, you wouldn't be the first flipper here.......by far. Glad to have you!

Moonlight,
I guess I was the one that called you out on flipping, but there really is nothing wrong with flipping. Flipping is what makes businesses run. I have done a fair share of flipping. Once it is your card you are free to do with it as you like. If someone really wants it from you then you get to set the price.

I only pointed it out because the posts showed a psa 6 sold in August of 2010 on ebay for $266. Then you bought a psa5 nearly two weeks ago (a little over a year since the PSA 6) for $623. I would have been impressed if it could triple again within a week.

If you can sell it for the price you have out there I won't be mad at you for flipping, I will be surprised that it worked just adding the Jackson info in there (and a bit jealous).

Thank you!! I'm honored to be here and finally chatting with you guys!! I've learned alot already!!

The question is: should i let the auction run? should i reduce the price? or should i just end it? it would be interesting to see what happens. at this point there have been 48 hits with 1 watcher. let me know

Welcome to the forum. Let the card run. If it doesn't sell you can relist it for less if you want to. As Scott mentioned, my first years of collecting I never flipped cards. Now I enjoy it....but most of my main collection stays in place. There is no right or wrong answer. Whatever you do, just communicate well, don't scam anyone and treat others like you want to be treated and you will do fine. There is no harm in making a profit as there will be times when you don't. Hopefully more times than not you will break even or better. Have fun and happy collecting!!

Thanks for the advice Leon and thanks for letting me join the forum!! By the way i'm really just collecting anything with moonlight graham in it:D

Lower Price
 

I've lowered the price to 1395.00 OBO-we'll see where that goes. I've had alot of looks-no offers-i guess the opening price was pretty crazy!:D

I truly believe the player is not joe jackson, but terry turner. T202s had alot of repeat players, and if memory serves me right, turner was featured in a few. I have also looked at some pics of him during that era and i would lean much more towards him than shoeless joe... Also, in 1911 shoeless joe hit .408! i would have to believe with those credentials, he would have been mentioned by name on the back

I don't know what all the concern is, Bret thought the card was worth $1000 so it looks like you have a buyer at a nice profit. No need to pay the ebay fees.

Lee

Online Auction
 

I've decided to start the card at 99 cents and let it run for a 7 day auction-maybe adding shoeless joe will at least help me break even but who knows. I really had nearly 700 dollars in the card with tax and shipping. Any thoughts?:confused:

Here we go again...

You can believe all you want... but you've already been PROVEN wrong. Terry Turner WAS featured on multiple cards on the set, which means that they obviously had a contract with him and were free to use his name (which they did on a few cards in this set). So the fact that his name is not on this particular card is just another bit of eveidence that it's not him. Also, it doesn't matter what Joe Jackson hit that year, if he didn't have a contract with the card company then they wouldn't be allowed to use his name which explains why he wasn't also featured on a side panel or in the T-205 set which shared the same portrait pictures. Oh, and by the way... If you look at the card in person and know anything about Joe Jackson you can pretty clearly tell that it's him. If that's not enough for you just go back and look at the other 70 pages of evidence in this thread.

sorry, it's not joe jackson....also for the record, i do know just a little about jackson and i've seen the card in person because i own one!

Believe what you will, Kevin, but you may want to check out a few key posts in this thread, mainly the initial post by Greg (botn) with a similar photo from a newspaper identifying the baserunner as Shoeless Joe, then a following comparison photo by Tim. I was also a skeptic at first, so I know where you're coming from, so to speak.

Unfortunately, Tim's comparison photo has since been removed, but it was fairly conclusive. It's a long thread, so it's tough to go back through it all, but check out post #243 (Greg's initial find of the newspaper photo identifying the baserunner as Joe), post #306 by Brett, then Tim's post #344. (other posts added to the findings, but I believe these three may be the key ones to see)

http://www.net54baseball.com/showpos...&postcount=243

http://www.net54baseball.com/showpos...&postcount=306

http://www.net54baseball.com/showpos...&postcount=344

Yeah..anyone coming in late to this thread should read the whole thing...I think it was pretty conclusive that this is Shoeless Joe.

I put them back.

Seeing the newspaper photo identified as Joe next to the card photo was the deciding factor for me. The comparison is very convincing, and I would add irrefutable in my opinion.

You are a very difficult man to sway... I respect that..... But read the 3 posts above and the discussion is over. Sorry. Oh, and you may know a little bit about Jackson, but not as much as Mike Nola (the historian from the Black Betsy website) who said the player on that card is "100% Joe Jackson".

Thanks. This was a great topic.

A couple other helpful posts...

http://www.net54baseball.com/showpos...&postcount=361

http://www.net54baseball.com/showpos...&postcount=362

Could it be that this thread inspired the folks at Helmar? At least this one clearly states Jackson is in the card.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/T202-Helmar-...item1c24c99094

I know that someone affiliated with Helmar reads this board regularly. When a board member called them into question for shill-bidding their Ebay auctions they responded swiftly.

PS: This was one of my favorite threads. Thanks for bringing it back from the dead.

Dear God I thought this thread was dead and buried.....:(

Can someone resurrect the Markel Report and Carterscards threads too?

go for it :)

Don't mean to intrude as I offered nothing to this thread, but it is my favorite since I have been a member of Net54. The detective work was awesome and I followed every moment of it. Just saying, glad to see it again and I read through most of it again... It inspired me to watch Eight Men Out for the 100th time last night...

Cheers,

Jim

Fascinating thread (Apart from the bickering).

I took high resolution studio photos of my wife's collection and she has this card in excellent condition. Perhaps this image can be of help. It becomes limited by the halftone of the printing process as well as the file size restrictions I am afraid but if it helps all the better. Is he wearing a black armband on his right arm?

Attachment 176276

+1

Yup. That's definitely him. Cool.

Like a phoenix
 

Net54 at its best.

Awesome thread.

-Nick

delete message, thanks...

delete message, sorry...

delete message, sorry...

Give him a break. He is new and was just searching the site.

Did you miss the big T206 find on Antiques Roadshow thread? Might want to check that out then revisit this one.

Tom C

I haven't been on Net54 lately. But logged on and saw this was the number 1 item being discussed ... glad to see I haven't missed much :)

delete message, thanks..

Probably using the "Search" function. I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to be so rude to a brand new member. One who is here researching his wife's collection.

My apologies Dan, I had thought this was in the past 3 years ago and someone was playing games. i have since reached out to the new member....

After reading this thread for the first time, I spent six months obsessively looking to acquire this card. Since adding it, I've spent more time than I care to admit to looking at it under intense light, and magnification, and then rereading the discussion again. And I have to agree with the near consensus the other members came to after seeing the newspaper picture. It's him.

Now, will a publication ever take the bold step of identifying the center panel including him? We shall see. But I love my card, whether or not he's ever identified, because it has generated a lot of great discussion on the forum. So, the card will remain special to me. :)

+1

I picked up one of the cards from Sterling Auctions in December 2012, and am in complete agreement with you.

Steve