Shoeless Joe Jax DIVERSION, why isn't he in any 1911-1917 major T or E-card sets ?
 

OK, so many of you have expended all your energies on a questionable Joe Jackson "centerfold" on a T202 card.
It's about time for a diversion, so here is a thought-provoking question for you guys to mull over......

Other than the American Caramel (E90-1) and 1910 OLD MILL (T210), I find it very mystifying that Shoeless Joe
was never featured on any of the subsequent T-cards or E-cards (except E135 Collins McCarthy) prior to WWI.


<img src="http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/collinsmccarthyjoejax.jpg" alt="[linked image]"><img src="http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/collinsmccarthyjoejaxbk.jpg" alt="[linked image]">



Has anyone else ever wondered why this is so ?

If not, then give this subject some consideration....and, let's have a meaningful discussion over this mystery ? ?


TED Z

Shoeless Joe Jax DIVERSION, why isn't he in any post-1910 T or E-card sets ?
 

Incidently, if I have left out any Joe Jax cards issued between 1911 - 1917,
please chime in with what Joe Jax cards I have overlooked ?


TED Z

maybe his illiteracy kept him from signing many contracts?

I have read before that he was sensative to the subject and aften at a restaraunt he would order the same thing a teammate ordered vs having someone read the menu to him....

Cracker Jack is an E card, no? OH prior to WWI I see. Sorry.

Peter
 

Peter, i think you're safe. Ted posts PreWW1, then 2nd post indicates
'11-'17.

best,
barry

Ted,

Aren't B 18 blankets considered tobacco issues from before WWI?


David

1913 E270 Colgans tintop
1914 E224 Texas Tommy




T cards....... I believe there just wasnt artwork done of him, otherwise if he was in T205 he would have usually been in all the related sets T202, S74 silks, P2 pins, etc. that use the same drawings.

E cards......... The E90-1 card he was a "common" (batted .130 in 1908, .176 in 1909) in that set and not a Star player..... and when the other sets that used the same pictures (E92,E101, E102, E105) made their sets he wasnt a Star yet, so didnt choose him. E106, T216, Tango and D303 could have though I guess since they are from a few years later.

Shoeless Joe Jax DIVERSION, why isn't he in any post-1910 T or E-card sets ?
 

Hey guys, thanks for your inputs. I forgot that the 1914 & 1915 CJ's were classified as E-cards.

Anyhow, I'm really interested in your thoughts (theories) why Joe Jax is missing in the major
T-card sets and the majority of all the other E-card sets ?


TED Z

I may have somewhat explained it in an answer I gave in the other thread regarding the question of why his name wasn't mentioned on the T202 card.

Originally Posted by Abravefan11
"I've tried to remain impartial throughout this thread but I must admit after closely comparing the newspaper photo with the T202 image I'm on the "It's Joe" team now.

With that said I'm perplexed by the fact that they would use an image of Joe and not mention him on the card. Other players that aren't included on the end panels are mentioned in the description of center panel images."

Here was my response...
Yeah, and I can assure you that they were all compensated and signed off on the usage of their names on those cards. Maybe they were simply never able to get Joe to sign off for whatever reason or he just didn't want to be a part of it. Laws back then were much different than they are today and it's quite possible that Hassan had MLB's permission to use any of their player's images as part of the set without having to get the individual player's permission as long as they didn't use his name. I'm a sports agent and there are similar rules today as it related to trading cards. Some companies who don't have MLB's license can use players images and names BUT NO TEAM LOGOS as long as they have a license with the Players Association (like Upper Deck now). On the other hand, card companies have made cards where they didn't specify players names because they didn't have a group licensing agreement (GLA) with the Player's Union, but they could in fact show team logos because they bought the rights from the League. Look at Topps football cards from the mid 70's to around 1981 and you'll see that all the helmet and team logos are airbrushed out (no license from the League). Look at Fleer football cards from the same era and you'll see all the players in team logos, but no specific mention of those players' names (no license from the Players Association). As it turned out, the fans cared more about the players names and statistics and Fleer was put out of the football business for many years. At that point, Topps then got the NFL's rights to use team logos as well. Hope this possibly clears that up.

ALSO, all the players pictured on end panels of the T202 set were from the same exact pictures used in the T205 Gold Border set. Players like Lajoie and Crawford who for whatever reason never granted their permission the be included in the T205 set (but obviously agreed to be included in the T202 set) could only be featured on center panels being as no end-panel artwork existed. Maybe Shoeless Joe never agreed for his name to be used on either. There were several other sets from that era that he didn't appear in as well. In 1915 when he was considered the top player in the game why did he grant Cracker Jack permission to make a card of him, but not American Caramel? I'm sure American Caramel would have liked to include him as they made cards of all the other stars of the day. Looks like Joe wasn't very easy to pin down and maybe he was just way ahead of his time when it came to guarding his intellectual properties.

It could be that Joe's illiteracy kept him out of any deals with advertisers other than the ones we know of. If he received requests or contracts and never read them or responded to them I assume the companies just skipped him or felt he wasn't interested. Afterall, they were trying to sell candy or a tobacco and not cards of particular players. the feeling may have been that enough "stars" of the day were represented in their tobacco or candy inserts to attract buyers without the likes of Joe Jackson picture.
Does anyone know if Jackson was ever used to sell furniture or shoes by local stores in Cleveland....just curious.

I wonder why Joe wouldn't agree to this. I thought one of the reasons for the Black
Sox were that players were chronically underpaid by the team owners, so they
were looking for extra cash. So if these companies offered some dollars for their
permission, why wouldn't he jump at it? Maybe he was a very private person, but I
have seen him in posed photos from that era.

1913 T200s, the little ones and big 'uns for the Cleveland team.

cards with Jackson...
 

1909-11 E90-1 American Caramel Co.
1911 M101-2 Sporting News Supplements (03.23.11)
1910 T210-8 Old Mill Cigarettes
1911 T5 Pinkerton Cabinet
1911-15 Baseball Stars Notebooks
1912 E270 Colgan's Chips Tin-Tops
H813 Boston Garter
1913 T200 Fatima Team Cards (Cleveland-AL)
1913 T200 Fatima Team Premiums (Cleveland-AL)
1913 WG5 National Game Card Game
1913 WG6 Tom Barker Card Game
1914 B18 Egyptienne Straights Cigarettes Blankets (Purple Pennant)
1914 B18 Egyptienne Straights Cigarettes Blankets (Yellow Pennant)
1914 #103 E145-1 Rueckheim Bros. & Eckstein Cracker Jacks
1914 E224-1 Texas Tommy
1914 PC-UNC E&S Publishing Post Card
1914 WG4 Polo Grounds Card Game
1915 #103 E145-2 Rueckheim Bros. & Eckstein Cracker Jacks
1916 BF2 Ferguson Bakery Felt Pennants
1916 #86 D350 Standard Biscuit
1916 #87 M101-4 Altoona Tribune
1916 #87 M101-4 Burgess-Nash Clothiers

1916 #87 M101-4 Everybody's
1916 #87 M101-4 Gimbels
1916 #87 M101-4 Globe Clothing Store
1916 #87 M101-4 Green-Joyce Clothiers
1916 #87 M101-4 Herpolsheimer Co.
1916 #87 M101-4 Indianapolis Brewing Co.
1916 #87 M101-4 Morehouse Baking Co.
1916 #87 M101-4 Sporting News
1916 #87 M101-4 Ware's
1916 #87 M101-4 Weil Baking Co.
1916 #86 M101-5 Block and Kuhl Co.
1916 #86 M101-5 Famous and Barr Clothiers
1916 #86 M101-5 Gimbels
1916 #86 M101-5 Holmes to Homes
1916 #86 M101-5 Sporting News
1916 #86 M101-5 Successful Farming
1917 #82 H801-8 Boston Store
1917 #82 E135 Collins-McCarthy
1917 #82 E135 Standard Biscuit
1917 #82 D328 Weil Baking Co.
1917 #87 D329 Weil Baking Co.
1917 M-UNC Davis Printing (Team Issue)
1920-21 #15 W514 Strip Card
1940 R335 Gum, Inc. Play Ball
1946-49 W603 Sports Exchange

the above list are cards that feature Joe Jackson.

T206dk
 

Dave

That's a quite formidable list; but, the majority of those sets are regionals. Besides the 2 Cracker Jack issues, Joe Jax
is not featured individually in any major Candy or Tobacco sets during his great years with Cleveland and Chicago (1911
to 1920).

I don't know about you, but this mystery sure sparks my curiosity ?

I have some thoughts regarding why....but, first I'd rather hear Net54er's opinions. I think this is a discussion long over-
due. It's certainly more significant than the guesswork as to whether it's Joe Jax in a T202 centerfold photo (in order to
hype up the $$ value of that card).

Thanks for postig the list.

TED Z

Ted, I am eager to hear your views. though Jackson was illiterate, he was also known as a shrewd business man by many who came in contact with him. He may have just wanted too much money as compared to other players of his time, and the candy and tobacco companies didn't really need him to sell the particular product if they had dozens of other star players of the day signed on. After he left baseball I think he ran several businesses in Greenville, which tells me that he had some business sense about him even though he had never gone to school.

T206dk
 

Dave

I do not think the "compensation" factor explains why Joe Jax does not have an individual card in the major T and E card
sets (T202 - T216, and E92 - E106).

As, he had already allowed American Caramel and ATC to portray him in their E90 set and T210 set, respectively.
There has to be something more to this mystery.

Come on guys, let's hear your thoughts on why the 2nd best batter in BB in this era was not featured in these major BB
card sets ?


TED Z

A few thoughts.

Maybe the earlier deal with ATC went bad at some point? paid less than expected, not treated well, something like that?

Maybe the candy issues while major didn't sell well in Cleveland so it wasn't a big deal?

could he have had an exclusive deal with a third party who signed him and would try unsuccessfully to resell the rights? Sort of an early agent?

Or an exclusive deal with someone who never actually produced a set or with a regional that had failed aspirations at being bigger?

Steve B

Ted, I have read that he was still kind of looked upon as being a bumpkin even after he left Cleveland. Perhaps there was just some bias against him because of his simple country roots. Fans jeered him in Philadelphia and in Cleveland based on stories that were written about him in the newspapers I think.

We don't actually know for a fact he gave ATC or American Caramel his approval either( or do we). someone else ( his wife usaully) would read things to him. Would they have used his image without his permission ? I don't know, but there was still a lot of handshake deals in business going on back in those times with no written contracts.

Theories
 

Hi Ted,
I have a newspaper ad dated 1911 with Jackson endorsing Brown's Hats. So he probably was not against endorsements during that time. It's possible that the tobacco company authorizations were mailed to the homes of players. This was done in 1908-09 and then the same auths were probably re-used for future sets by ATC.

Jackson didn't spend much time 'reading' his mail, and the auths may have gone out at a difficult time in his career when he was moving around and getting established. Later he appears in Cracker Jack, Texas Tommy and B-18 Blankets around 1914.

Ron R

Ted given that most of the major E sets (I think) are 1911 or earlier, and his first real full season was not until 1911, how many major sets issued after he was a well-established player is he really not in, at the end of the day? Maybe we should list those and compare to other players' gaps?

Shoeless Joe Jax DIVERSION, why isn't he in any 1911-1917 major T or E-card sets ?
 

Peter S

Shoeless Joe played for the New Orleans Pelicans in 1910, batting .354 to lead the Southern Association. In
mid-Sept of 1910, Joe reported to Cleveland and played in 20 games, batting .387....in 1911, he batted .408
in 147 games....in 1912 he batted .395 in 154 games.

Therefore, I'm reprising your words in a question to you. Was he at this point "a well-established player" ?

Peter
CHECK THIS OUT....I have listed 17 pertinent sets that defy all normal reason, as they didn't include Joe Jax.

The following 4 sets include Cobb, Lajoie, Speaker, Wagner.....but no Jackson.

1911 E94
1911 Sporting Life (M116)
1915 E106
1916 Fleischmann

The following Tobacco sets include Cobb, Lajoie, Speaker.....but no Jackson.

1911 T205
1911 T206
1912 T202
1912 T207
1912 T215-1
1913 T215-2

Furthermore, the following Tobacco cards were marketed in the New Orleans area

1910 T213-1 (includes 20 Southern Leaguers in that region)
1914 T213-2
1919 T213-3
1915 T214
1916 T216 MINO, KOTTON, VIRGINIA EXTRA......(these 3 sets include Wagner)


This mystery further deepens !

And, I'm still waiting for some one here (anyone) to provide us a reasonable explanation why Shoeless Joe
is not in any of these sets.....when his peers are in all these sets ?


TED Z

Shoeless Joe Jax DIVERSION, why isn't he in any 1911-1917 major T or E-card sets ?
 

Furthermore, to add more "ammo" to this mystery....Dave's (T206DK) lengthy list (post #13) certainly indicates
that Joe Jax allowed many less prominent BB card company's to print his image.

So, why did Joe Jax not appear in the more prominent BB card company's sets, as I've listed in the above post ?

Really, I don't understand why this subject is not eliciting more of a conversation here ? ?


TED Z

Ted, it's an excellent question. Do you know, on a related matter, why Walter Johnson isn't in so many of the "E" sets?

Thank you for trying, Ted.

Peter
 

We had a thread that discussed Johnson's lack of of visibility on virtually all E-card sets (except for E91) back in 2006.
At this moment, off the top of my head, I do not recall the outcome of our discussion back then. Anyhow, let us save
that subject for another thread; and, get back to the question at hand in this thread :)


TED Z

Just some quick thoughts. Joe was almost inactive in the major leagues when the artwork for the T206 was produced. By the time he was in the majors and becoming a star T206 was coming to an end.

Does this help with other issue like T213, T214, and T215 that used T206 artwork as well?

T205's were produced before Joe was in the majors and not having a card in this set should explain his not being included in T202 as they share images as well. I still can't explain why his name wouldn't be included on the description of the center panel photo.

T216 uses images from the E102 set which was also before Joe's time.

Tim
 

Regarding your......
"I still can't explain why his name wouldn't be included on the description of the center panel photo."

My two answers to that......
Other than the T210 card of Joe, he apparently gets "No Respect" from ATC (the gist of this thread's contention).
Secondly, have we really ascertained without a doubt that, that centerfold photo actually depicts Joe Jax ?

Furthermore, when the T206 Southern Leaguer (SL) players were in the designing stages, Joe Jax was winning the
batting title at Savannah in 1909.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm quite sure that there are other T206 SL players representing Savannah ?


TED Z

My best guess is that it is a combination of before his time, sets using same images as before his time, and historical anomaly, and that there really is not any specific explanation such as he didn't give permission for specific reasons.

I don't think it was a lack of respect from what I have seen (he was included in T210) but rather a timing issue. Most of the images used in the T206 set and E102 sets were created before Joe was a star and later sets reused the same artwork which didn't include Joe.

I'm not ignoring the T202 panel question I just don't think it is relevant to this discussion and I don't want to derail this topic.

Joe was winning the batting title in 1909 but images for some SLer's were taken from the 1908 season.

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_UrSHvogCrmM/S_...0Updated20.jpg

Tim
 

Your...."Joe was winning the batting title in 1909 but images for some SLer's were taken from the 1908 season."

Joe was also winning the batting title with his hometown team, Greenville, batting .346 in 1908. In fact, the pix
of Joe, that American Caramel used for their E90 card, is taken from that team.


TED Z

Again I don't think it was a snub by ATC but rather a matter of timing. No player that I'm aware of represents a Carolina Association team in T206.

When ATC added the additional 14 SL players they were 4 Virginia League, 4 Texas League, and 4 Southern League (Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana.) No more players were added from the Georgia area.

Ted I think most sets on your list can be explained, the one that glaringly stands out to me is T207. His not being included in this set makes no sense to me. Four of the Cleveland players in the set were not on the team until 1912. Buddy Ryan played his first year of pro ball for Cleveland in 1912 and he was included. Given Joe's 1911 performance I can't figure out why ATC wouldn't include him in this issue.

Tim
 

<img src="http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/abjoejaxt206.jpg" alt="[linked image]">


Your......" When ATC added the additional 14 SL players they were 4 Virginia League, 4 Texas League, and 4
Southern League (Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana.) "


Rockenfeld is the only New Orleans player of the Southern Association in this 350-only group of SL subjects.
Why wasn't Joe Jax selected ? He was the most popular ballplayer in that League in 1910.....and, is credited
with New Orleans winning the pennant.

Furthermore, the final T206 press run (460 series) occurred in the Spring of 1911....tell me why Joe Jax wasn't
depicted in this series with a Cleveland uniform ?

I'll tell you why....for whatever reasons, ATC snubbed him (as they did in all their subsequent sets).



TED Z

E106s also re-use art from the 1908 E102 set, so it's no mystery why he's not in those. Also, T213s, T214s and T215s just re-use T206 art, don't they? Outside of the 1911/1912 T-cards, he's in about as many issues as we'd expect.

And you characterized the T202 thread as guesswork? LMAO.

Rockenfield played for Montgomery in 1909. As you know the 14 additional SL players were added in the 350 series first released in the spring of 1910. This all happened before Joe began play in New Orleans.

No new SL players were added after the 14 mentioned above and I don't think at the time the final 460 series was going into production Joe had done enough in Cleveland to warrant ATC including him as a professional.

Had Joe not been included in the T210 set I would agree he was snubbed.

Tim- - I agree with you that T207 is the only question, though Matty, Cobb, Young and Lajoie are missing there as well.

Matt after more consideration I'm not as surprised given what you said. I think whatever kept so many other HOF players out of the T207 set kept out Joe as well.

I think those players were just too artful to put into such a drab offering. I bet seeing what the artist did with WaJo, they decideed to have mercy on the other superstars of the day.
http://www.vintagecardtraders.org/vi...7/t207-087.jpg

The 3 tobacco sets in the T216 issue, for the better part, borrowed the artwork from the E90-1 set.
Actually, I think it was the same printer. Therefore, Joe Jackson's image was available. All they had
to do was change his uniform.


TED Z

Hey guys....
 

I've had my suspicions that the T207 cards were not printed by the American Lithographic Company.
That may account for why Matty, Cobb, Young, etc. were not in it. However, a lot of other subjects,
that are not found in the white-bordered cards, are found in the T207 set.


TED Z

Images used in the T216-1 set were a combination of at least 3 former sets.

E102, E90-1, and E101

Joe was definitely an available image for the T216 sets.

T207
 

T207 has a very odd collection of players. I'm working on a set, and continue to be surprised at how many of the players were not in T206. Besides some stars already mentioned by Ted and Tim, there is no Wagner, Eddie Collins, Crawford, Evers, Grover Alexander, Plank, Baker, M. Brown, Walsh, etc.

T207 is one strange set, and probably deserves its own discussion.

Ron R

Shoeless Joe Jax DIVERSION, why isn't he in any 1911-1917 major T or E-card sets ?
 

OK, we have eliminated several of the aforementioned sets. But, that leaves us these remaining sets to consider.

1915 E106............................same images from E90-1, therefore no excuse for no Joe Jax
1916 T216 KOTTON................same images from E90-1, therefore no excuse for no Joe Jax
1916 T216 MINO....................same images from E90-1, therefore no excuse for no Joe Jax
1916 T216 VIRGINIA EXTRA.....same images from E90-1, therefore no excuse for no Joe Jax
1916 Fleischmann

Since Joe Jackson is featured in the T210 Old Mill set (Series 8), and American Litho. repeated many of their T210
images in the T206, T209, T211 (Red Sun), and T213-1 (Coupon) sets.....but, not Joe's image.
Why is this so ?

That being said, there appears to be no rational reason for not continuing to print Joe in the following sets, given
his tremendous performance during these years........

1912 T202
1912 T215-1
1913 T215-2
1914 T213-2
1915 T214
1919 T213-3


TED Z

Considering the T202 end panels are the same images as the T205 set and Joe wasn't in that set, isn't that a rational explanation for why he wasn't included?

Imagine if that awful pic from E90-1 was reproduced in all these other sets. Ugh.

Peter
 

DITTO

It's a good thing they left him out.....

But, at the same time, the kids back then loved Joe and they deserved to have BB cards of him.
American Caramel should have updated their picture of Joe and printed him.


<img src="http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/abjoejaxt206.jpg" alt="[linked image]">


TED Z

For Ted and all the kids back in 1911:
http://photos.imageevent.com/kawika_...%20Jackson.jpg

David
 

Great T3......it is indeed Shoeless Joe......thanks for posting it.


TED Z

No ankle wrap....

I am going to ring in even though I know absolutely nothing about this (and am about to display it).

I think Ted is on the right track overall in that the exclusion seems intentional, with the mystery being which party didn't want him on some of the cards.

It seems clear that these cards - whether candy, tobacco or other - were big business and widely/commonly known at the time. Therefore, I have a hard time with any "accidental" omission on Joe's part - the illiteracy, missing mail, etc. He had to be extremely aware of the baseball card business, and if he wanted to be part of it he surely could have.

It also seems clear that he was a serious player - on the same level as other players of the time who are represented in multiple sets during his peak years - and not an obscurity. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to me that the card companies would allow the lack of an "on hand" photo to keep him off the cards. I can see omission from the very early caramel sets - when he wasn't quite as big. But anything after 1910 or so seems like he should be there. If he was a premier player, the card companies (or ATC) could have and clearly would have gotten an image from somewhere.

So for these reasons, I mentally set aside any accidental or incidental omission of oversight or inconvenience or whatever. That leaves intentional exclusion. The question, maybe, isn't "why isn't he on the cards?" A more pointed question might be "which party (Jax or ATC) decided that he would not appear on cards?"

This leads to all kinds of interesting related questions. Why? Did the other party make significant efforts to change the mind of whoever decided he would not be in these sets? Did they even know why? Did anyone try to mediate (his team, other players, etc)? Not that these related questions may ever be known, but they are interesting to just wonder about and try to imagine.

Very interesting question, but I think Ted is on the right track when he talks about a snub. Not that a snub is the exact right answer, but it is in the arena of someone (Jax or ATC) deciding to leave him off major issues of the time. I honestly don't think that the lack of images or literacy or whatever was in play. These cards were a big deal. If both parties wanted it to happen, it would have happened.

Joann

Joann you asked some great questions if this turns out to be a snub but so far I am not convinced that is the case here. Joe is featured in both ATC and American Caramel issues. Why he wasn't included in several other sets by them has been answered earlier in this thread. Why he wasn't included in the others may have a good explanation as well with more research.

American Litho did not repeat the T210 images in the other sets. The other sets repeated the T206 images including T210. All of the sets that utilized the T206 images will not include Joe Jackson.

These two cards illustrate that T206 images were shared with T210. Perry Lipe was with Richmond in 1909 and Macon in 1910.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_UrSHvogCrmM/TA...0Updated28.jpg



1912 T202 – Same images as T205 so no Joe
1912 T215-1 – Shared images with T206 so no Joe
1913 T215-2 – Shared images with T206 so no Joe
1914 T213-2 – Shared images with T206 so no Joe
1915 T214 – Shared images with T206 so no Joe
1919 T213-3 – Shared images with the T206 so no Joe

I'm looking at the other sets and will let you know if I find anything.

I agree that it was not necessarily a snub in the sense that ATC simply shut him out altogether. It may have been something on JJ's part. It may have been somewhat mutual. It may have been a decision that arose at a particualr point in time or between two particular people (explaining his presence in some sets but not others).

But I do think that it was definitely an intentional choice by somebody, and not just an accident of literacy or lack of an old photo handily on file. So I'm not sure that any of the conjecture around which different sets used common images is a basis for a reason - if both sides wanted him to be in, they would definitely have arranged for something as simple as an image.

Great topic though. I don't have any of the detailed knowledge of this set and that printer, etc, that you guys have. But I'm enjoying considering the issue from a pure (read: lack of specific expertise) knowledge standpoint.

J

The different sets using common images is extremely important in this discussion and as a basis for Joe not being included. At the time these cards were printed and still today, the artwork and setup was the most costly part of the printing process. This is why we see images used over and over in different sets throughout a number of years.

Once Joe missed the T206 boat he was doomed to not be in other ATC issues using those images. The T206 set was so large and full of stars that I don't feel they were concerned with adding Joe or any other player that may have been left out of The Monster.

American Caramel is a little bit more of a riddle as they did include him in the E90-1 set but not others that used that sets images.

Grover Alexander
 

How about Grover Alexander? He was a superstar rookie in 1911 leading the NL with 28 wins. Does he appear in any of the early tobacco sets?

Joe Jackson appeared in only 30 games prior to 1911, so he was pretty much a rookie in 1911 also.

Ron R

OK. That's a good point. I am thinking that if he was a star they would want him in it and find an image - no big deal. But I suppose it's very possible that they really didn't care whether he was in it or not and decided not to pursue it for that reason. Still, I would think it was a conscious decision and not that they didn't even think of it.

J

Joann
 

I do admire your intellectual curiosity in this matter per your first post (#53). In particular your summation......
"Very interesting question, but I think Ted is on the right track when he talks about a snub. Not that a snub is
the exact right answer, but it is in the arena of someone (Jax or ATC) deciding to leave him off major issues of
the time. I honestly don't think that the lack of images or literacy or whatever was in play. These cards were a
big deal. If both parties wanted it to happen, it would have happened."

So, don't back off from those sentiments. Your comments echo my contentions here that the "snubbing" of Joe
Jackson was NOT inadvertent.
I was hoping to generate some more meaningful discussion here. And perhaps, someone would provide us some
substantial info as to why Jackson was not depicted in the major BB card sets during his best years (1911-1920).
Some of us have bantered about ACC and ATC printing processes and the like....well here is what I imagine really
occurred (based on all that I have read).

Connie Mack listened to his scouts regarding Joe Jax superb all-around play at Greenville (Class D ball), 1908. Mack
invited Joe to the play with the A's on Aug 25, 1908. NOTE....this coincides closely with his inclusion in the E90 set.
In that Sept, Joe had only 23 at bats for the A's. Joe was very uncomfortable in Philadelphia, as he did not get along
with his A's teammates, many of whom teased him mercilessly about his illiteracy and lack of polish. Virtually all of
Connie Mack's A's were College graduates.

But there was another factor in those early days of BB......there was a strong predjudice against ballplayers from the
"Deep South" by the mostly Northern-bred players of that day. The best example of this was when Cobb started in BB.

Anyhow, Connie Mack sensed all this and sent Joe down to Savannah for the most of the 1909 season. Then in 1910,
to New Orleans. Joe won the batting title in both those Leagues. He led New Orleans to the Pennant in the Southern
Association. In Sept of 1910, Mack traded Joe to Cleveland. Joe fit in well with his teammates there, as many of them
were Southern-bred, or had played in the Minors down South. The rest is history.

Please excuse my long-winded story here, but I feel it provides the background for why Joe Jax was deliberately snubbed
by many of the major set producers (E106, M116, T206, T207, T213-T216)....namely the Northern based company's pred-
judice and their lasting perception of Joe as a "country bumpkin".

I was was surprised to read about the anti-South sentiments that lingered that many years after the Civil War during the
early part of the 20th Century.
The advent of WWI considerably ameliorated this sentiment.

Thanks again Joann,

TED Z

Tim
 

I cannot agree with your......

"Once Joe missed the T206 boat he was doomed to not be in other ATC issues using those images. The T206 set
was so large and full of stars that I don't feel they were concerned with adding Joe or any other player that may
have been left out of The Monster.

American Caramel is a little bit more of a riddle as they did include him in the E90-1 set but not others that used
that sets images."

The 2nd wave (350-only series) of 14 Southern Leaguers should have included him in the New Orleans uniform. This
series of cards were printed coincident with the T210 OLD MILL cards. American Litho. (ALC) had already designed
their printing plate of Joe. He was not an unknown by that time. He had excelled with Savannah in 1909 and was
excelling with New Orleans in 1910. He was the "hottest" prospect in the Minors. Certainly more prominent than any
of the So. Lger's that were portrayed.

Regarding the American Caramel Company's (ACC) E90-1 set, if you read my aforementioned "Plank theory", it told
how close Connie Mack and Daniel Lafean (the founder of ACC) were....and, that is why in late 1908 this set's 1st
series was dominated with the A's players. Subsequently, Lafean sold ACC and went into Pennsylvania politics.

TED Z

Due to the T206 timeline he couldn't be included in a New Orleans uniform. He played for New Orleans in 1910 and the additional 14 southern league players were distributed in the spring of 1910. This would mean that the additional 14 were designed in late 1909 or the first few months of 1910 before Joe played in New Orleans.

this is kind of what I was talking about several posts ago. He was considered a "rube" and was discriminated against because of his southern roots and simple ways. This angle makes sense and is supported

Tim
 

If the timeline is a little tricky, then I'll settle for a Savannah uniform and team caption for Joe. The image was already designed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd say Savannah players are in the series of 48 So. Lgers. ?


TED Z

How do you explain the 48 southern league players that were included if it was a question of discrimination? The T206 set is full of "southern rubes."

The southern league players were selected from their previous seasons. The 34 included in the first run were selected from the 1908 season and printed in the summer of 1909. The 14 added were taken from the 1909 season and distributed in March of 1910.

IMO it wasn't discrimination, it wasn't an anti Joe campaign, it was timing. The facts I believe back that up.

As with any topic we can agree to disagree.

One player represents Savannah in the set and he was chosen from the 1908 season and appeared in the first 34 southern league set in 1909.

Joe played for Savannah (South Atlantic League) in 1909 and when ATC added 14 additional southern leaguers they could have added him but apparently wanted to increase the number of players in the Southern Association , Virginia League, and Texas League.

But it's not just the T206 set. It's several important sets of the era.

If it's just timing and photos, then the absence of a significant player from the significant sets of a significant commercial activity (baseball cards as promos) would amount to "it just didn't work out".

I don't know jack from jackola about the dates of issue and any of that, so I realize that I don't have a real substantive leg to stand on here. But from a logic standpoint, it really seems to me that it would have had to have been something more affirmative than simply not working out. I do understand the thought that maybe they decided that Cobb, Johnson, Matty, etc, were enough. Still, there were images available, and players being added, removed or changed here and there over the course of the distribution of these sets.

Joann

Of those sets that use the same images as the T206 set, was a new player included that didn't first appear in T206?

So if Jax was snubbed why isn't Alexander in any of the sets either?

Joann
 

I think there is and I'll check it out.


TED Z

Peter......et al
 

Another big mystery.....perhaps he was also snubbed :)

Alexander and Jackson had parallel seasons in 1911 (their first full seasons in the majors). Jackson bats .408
and Alexander leads the NL by winning 28 games.

Alexander's pitching performance in 1911 is the greatest season by a rookie pitcher in the 20th Century........

28-13 with a 2.57 ERA


So, why were Jackson and Alexander "snubbed" ?

Regarding Jackson....a combo of predjudice against BB players from the deep South and his illiteracy.
Jackson was not a talker....he was a doer. He did his "talking" with his Black Beauty bat.

Whereas, in Alexander's case, a heavy drinker, who had bouts with epilepsy, and was very introverted.
Alexander was not a talker....he was a doer. He did his "talking" with his right arm.

Goodness, how do you NOT portray in a major BB card set, a pitcher who won 190 games from 1911-1917.


TRIVIA......There is a strange coincidence associated with Alex's name....can you tell me what it is ?


TED Z

"But there was another factor in those early days of BB......there was a strong predjudice against ballplayers from the
"Deep South" by the mostly Northern-bred players of that day. The best example of this was when Cobb started in BB"


I think I buy into the snub for JJ-along with Cobb being included in 206 but not included in the Rochester, factory 649 part of the set-snubbed.

I know Speaker is Texas and that is south but not "Deep South"-How many big time players are "Deep South"?

Tim
 

That Virginia State League photo is killer -thanks for sharing it on the board

Jim
 

Your........

"I think I buy into the snub for JJ-along with Cobb being included in 206 but not included in the Rochester, factory 649
part of the set-snubbed"

This certainly is a good argument for Cobb's four T206 cards not printed with Brown or Red HINDU backs (Factory #649).

Also, this might explain why Cobb was not included in the SWEET CAPORAL 150, Factory 649 (overprint) subset....while
all the other major T206 stars are in it.

Great observation ole buddy,

TED Z

Other T206 players were from the deep south, not in the numbers of the Northern and Midwest players, but they are there. Nap Rucker was born and played his minor league career in Georgia and he has two cards in the set.

I think speculating about JJ being snubbed because of bias or any other reason is over complicating a simple explanation. As I've stated before he could not be included in the T206 set because of when and where he played in relation to when and where they chose their images for the set. And without a T206 image he would not be included in a large number of other sets.

I agree with Tim. If Jax and Alexander truly were being snubbed, they would not have been included in as many sets as they were. Much more likely their start dates relative to T206.

Tim, Tim......
 

Sorry to say this, but you are grasping at straws with your one example, Nap Rucker. Actually, there are only 4
players from the deep South in the entire set......

Ty Cobb..........Georgia
Pryor McElveen.....Georgia
Rebel Oakes.....Louisiana
Nap Rucker......Georgia

These 4 represent only 1% of the 389 different subjects in the T206 set.

Tell me Tim.....is this just a coincidence, or were there no talented BB players from the deep South in that era ?
Or, could this be a case of deliberate predjudice towards BB players from the deep South by the team owners,
sports media, and perhaps the BB card companies (ACC and ATC) ?

Furthermore, you have stated that NO new players were added to the set. The 460 series was printed and issued
in the Winter of 1910 thru to the Spring of 1911. The following subjects are all new additions to the T206 set in
this last series......

Devore
Duffy
Frill
Ford
Gandil
Geyer
Hummel
Latham
Needham
Payne
Pfeffer
Wheat

Obviously, Alexander didn't quite make it into the T206 set....but, you have to come up with some better stuff to
disuade me of my feelings that Joe Jackson was deliberately left out of all the subsequent Tobacco card sets.

Finally, if you guys choose not to accept the "predjudice" factor in these situations, then explain why the four T206
Ty Cobb cards (which were issued with many tobacco backs), were not issued with the Brown or Red HINDU backs ?

I think there is a connection here on the Cobb/HINDU enigma, as it continued in the T205 issue & T201 (MECCA) issue.


TED Z

Your number of four is not accurate and I'll cite Gabby Street as one example of a player you left off your list. With that said I'm not going to deny southern bias nor am I going to discuss it in relation to Joe Jackson not being included in the T206 set. I have explained in detail the T206 timeline and how ATC included southern league players and Joe does not fit into those parameters.

Your reference to my stating there were no new players added is inaccurate. I asked the following question:

"Of those sets that use the same images as the T206 set, was a new player included that didn't first appear in T206?"


Ted even though I have great respect for your research I don't feel I need to dissuade you. I have given you specific facts in relation to the sets in question and why Joe was not included in them. Facts that so far you or anyone else haven't refuted.

With that said I will gladly bow out of this discussion as I feel I've stated my case and let you and others continue on with this topic where ever it may lead.

Southern-born players
 

Gabby Street was from Alabama. I'm thinking there were a few others, Ted. Perhaps others can chime in.

Ron

well
 

Actually, there are more than that, and the fact remains that there simply were not that many MLB players from the deep south during that time.

Some others from the South included in T206: Dolly Stark and Dode Criss (Mississippi); Syd Smith (SC); Jimmy Lavender (GA) and Gabby Street (Ala).