I'm almost POSITIVE this card features Shoeless Joe...

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by brett

There is a lot of evidence now that it's likely Shoeless Joe, and NO evidence that would indicate that it isn't.

Brett remember that I don't need to have any evidence to say that it's not Joe and you need something factual to say that it is. Right now even with all the things that point to it possibly being Joe you don't have anything definitive to say that it is. With that said I encourage you and everyone else to keep looking.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Brett remember that I don't need to have any evidence to say that it's not Joe and you need something factual to say that it is. Right now even with all the things that point to it possibly being Joe you don't have anything definitive to say that it is. With that said I encourage you and everyone else to keep looking.

Exactly. It would be great if this turns out to be Jackson, but absent a corroborating photo from a newspaper or archive you just can't say with any certainty that it is Jackson.

Despite the minor blow ups this thread really is a great one and despite what others might say this really is good for the hobby to have these types of discussions.

[brett]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Exactly. It would be great if this turns out to be Jackson, but absent a corroborating photo from a newspaper or archive you just can't say with any certainty that it is Jackson.

Dan, I understand what you're saying, but if I show you a photo of Barack Obama without a corroborating photo from a newspaper or archive does that mean you can't say without certainty that it's him? There have been many, many instances of newspapers and card companies misidentifying people throughout the years. Does that mean that just because they say it's somebody that it has to be true? Good luck finding the photographer or photo editor from 100 years ago. The same way that an old autograph or jersey is authenticated if everything about it looks consistent with it's day, everything about this card now points to it being Shoeless Joe Jackson... The photo is confirmed to be from 1911, Joe was known to have worn a right ankle wrap that year, he physically looks the same as every other photo that shows him sliding, and most importantly if you've seen enough pics of Shoeless Joe you would know by just looking at his face on that card (not on a low-resolution computer scan) that it's him. The world heard it here on the Net 54 Forum first! You are all very welcome, and if there's any sort of award that comes with this Leon can just accept it on my behalf and donate it to the HOF.

[barrysloate]

Mark- I still think this is a good thread because it has allowed collectors a chance to research a photo and share their findings. That's a lot more than what goes on in most threads around here. The fact that the research may lead to a dead end, or to an erroneous finding, doesn't mean it's not a good one. At least it has made some people think. What's wrong with that?

[T206DK]

I don't know about any injuries Jackson may have had until about 1914, but I have also wondered if the wrap or sock he wears was to protect his leg against being hit by pitchers or from foul balls. here is an interesting link from SABR on Shoeless Joe http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?...=1715&pid=6843

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Mark- I still think this is a good thread because it has allowed collectors a chance to research a photo and share their findings. That's a lot more than what goes on in most threads around here. The fact that the research may lead to a dead end, or to an erroneous finding, doesn't mean it's not a good one. At least it has made some people think. What's wrong with that?

My thoughts exactly. I would actually think that Mark would love threads like this because it gives him an opportunity to educate and also a new subject for research. I do believe that Brett is jumping the gun here...there's probably enough evidence for a Texas district attorney that this is Jackson, but like I said before, absent an identifying photo from the photographer this will not be conclusive.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Mark- I still think this is a good thread because it has allowed collectors a chance to research a photo and share their findings. That's a lot more than what goes on in most threads around here. The fact that the research may lead to a dead end, or to an erroneous finding, doesn't mean it's not a good one. At least it has made some people think. What's wrong with that?

Dan:
I would actually think that Mark would love threads like this because it gives him an opportunity to educate and also a new subject for research

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

Yeah - OK

[square5000]

I don't mean to be a killjoy in this really fascinating thread, especially with a post from a newbie, but could the sliding player be Bill Bradley?
I believe his last year with Cleveland was 1910, and Lord was with the Chisox during the last half of 1910. Couldn't the photo be from 1910 instead of 1911?
Plus, he has prominent ears and a thin face similar to the sliding player (and a similar appearance to Jackson.) But, I have no explanation for the ankle wrap

If it's Joe Jackson, that would be really awesome and a great find. As others have stated, we'll never know for sure until the original photo is found.
Again, this is a great thread!


Note: Photos from a thread on baseball-fever.com

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by square5000

I don't mean to be a killjoy in this really fascinating thread, especially with a post from a newbie, but could the sliding player be Bill Bradley?
I believe his last year with Cleveland was 1910, and Lord was with the Chisox during the last half of 1910. Couldn't the photo be from 1910 instead of 1911?
Plus, he has prominent ears and a thin face similar to the sliding player (and a similar appearance to Jackson.) But, I have no explanation for the ankle wrap

If it's Joe Jackson, that would be really awesome and a great find. As others have stated, we'll never know for sure until the original photo is found.
Again, this is a great thread!


Note: Photos from a thread on baseball-fever.com

I believe it's been determined that Lord joined Chicago late in the 1910 season, and only played 3-4 games against Cleveland, and all the games were in Chicago. Based on this, the photo must be from 1911.

Steve

[orator1]

Here are close-ups of the four players wearing the white ankle wrap on the right ankle, compared to the player in question. A higher resolution scan of the card is needed for a better comparison. Then maybe players can be ruled out based on facial features.
Is there any significance that the first and fourth players appear to have caps where the "C" is faded and slightly off center? The 2nd and 3rd players appear to have darker caps with a whiter "C" that appears to be more centered, like the hat of the player in question.

Paul C.

[T206DK]

hmmmm the blow up compared to the 4 pictures of the players looks kind like the first player.....even the ears kind of look similar. the resolution is not that good though