How many people accept the T200 Cleveland card as their J. Jax card?

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

How many people accept a T200 as their Joe Jackson card? Any card of Joe Jackson is getting pretty expensive (relatively speaking). Even a 1940 PB card isn't really that cheap.

To me the T200 Cleveland team works as my Joe Jackson card. I figure one day I'll have to get the 1940 PB card of him to complete that set but that card isn't from his playing days. I think that I'll end up getting a CJ card of him in the future but it's just not on my radar right now.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob Dewolf

Fred,

For what it's worth, unless a team card is the only card to feature a specific player, I consider it only a team card.

An an example, I collect Lajoie cards but consider the T200 Cleveland card an afterthought in my Lajoie collection. But again, that's just me.

Rob

(edited to add Lajoie example)

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

I agree with Rob. I'm a Cobb collector and the T200 Tigers card is important but probably 15th-20th on the list of his cards I covet. As for Jackson....E90-1 or CJ for me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark Evans

I consider my T200 Pirates card to be my card of Ed (Midget) Mensor (who?) because his Voskamp Coffee card never shows up and, if it should, this kid won't be winning it in the absence of a Mega Millions score. I've thought about chasing the T200 Cleveland card for Jackson but think I'll hold off for Mega and then pick up his Cracker Jack instead. Mark

[Archive]

Posted By: pas

National Gam/Tom Barker is not a bad alternative if you don't want to shell out a lot more.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

It is a team card.
Joe Jax is in the team picture.
Therefore, it can serve as the poor man's Jax card.
I am a poor man in this game.
Therefore, it is my Jax card, and I love it as such!

For the record, with the exception of one (The black and white M101, I think?), I think Joe Jackson's single-player issues are ugly as hell. But that is just my opinion, which I am entitled to, and while I know in my heart of hearts that I am correct, please remember, it is a poor man's opinion.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott M.

This is the only one that I would accept

http://tinyurl.com/2rkfq3

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

It isn't a player card, but used as such for the JJax Master Set/PSA Registry.

1913 FATIMA T-200 TEAM CARD JOE JACKSON 1 7 54

[Archive]

Posted By: Ken W.

My T200 Pirates is my only period Honus Wagner card and I'm way cool with that!

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

The 3 different 1913 era game cards (WG4, WG5, WG6) are far better than a T200 team card or even the 2 decade after his banishment 1940 Play Ball card. And these 3 cards will cost roughly the same in mid to low grade as a T200 and less than the 1940 card. I Still dont know why collectors dont buy these Jackson or Wagner game cards up. The photos are very attractive to me especially the Barker and National Game cards.

And why would anyone even consider a card made 20 years after his last pro game?? Its like making your Babe Ruth card a 1960 Fleer card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

Do you have some scans of those game cards that you are talking about?
I would be curious to see what those W-cards look like...I don't recognize the catalog number

thanks!
Jason L

[Archive]

Posted By: G. Maines

I have no problem in using multi-player cards to represent individual players. Heck, they are on the card.

And recently, I have become disillusioned with the date of card issuance for correlation with baseball occurances. This is in part attributable to images often being employed that pre-date the card's manufacture by a decade or more. I am currently thinking that the date of original image generation has greater relvancy than when the card was made.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

they are commonly referred to as "the National Game" or the "Tom Barker game" cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anthony

I agree, the W cards are great value for a playing era card.
Here's scans from vcp
National Game

Tom Barker

PoloGrounds:

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

I agree that the T200 Cleveland card is not a "Jackson" card. It is a team card. I'm just going to count it as my Jackson card until I can find a "real" Jackson card. I forgot about the game cards. Those are reasonable alternatives to the standard released cards. Thanks for that tip. I usually don't like game cards too much but I've been warming up to them lately. I kind of regard the game cards like strip cards but even some of the strip cards aren't that bad.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ken W.

I think that it kind of matters whether or not the player's name is listed on the front of the card (or perhaps even on the back). If there is no mention of the individual players, that seems to be more of a "team" card to me. Maybe not as acceptable? Just a thought - not sure I agree with it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenneth A. Cohen

I find the T200 to be a great real photo representation of Jackson's playing days and thus acceptable as your Jax card. On some levels, I find it more desirable than the E90-1 - to me a cartoonish caricature identifiable only by virtue of the name "Jackson" printed on it. It all depends on your collecting criteria which are, of course, personal.

As to another relatively lower cost alternative, how about the M101-2? Or is that not considered a card?

[Archive]

Posted By: Erick Lewin

I don't have any Jackson card, not even the t200 team card. I thought about buying a low grade one a couple years ago but passed. I decided that it wouldn't satisfy my desire for a Jackson card. I felt as though I would never be happy having that card as my only Jackson, so i plan on waiting. Probably, at least a couple more years, then if I have the money and find one
for the right price; I would really like a 1915 CJ.

So i don't accept it as a real Jackson but I think its up to the individual on this issue. It can be a more affordable way to get a card with him on it.