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

[brett]

Originally Posted by botn

Geno has made several valid observations. It does appear in the T202 that the SS, Tannehill, is facing away from the play at 3rd (seems he is facing 2nd base) so while the image from the newspaper is close I don't think it is the play which was memorialized in the T202.

If it was the same play it's obvious that the newspaper pic was snapped just after the T202 pic. One thing to keep in mind is that Tannehill also played several games at 2nd base that year. You can see that the shortstop on the T202 card looks lik he's running to cover 2nd base and is almost out of the picture... so maybe that's why he's not in the newspaper shot (not to mention that the newpaper shot is more of a closeup). The back of the T202 makes no mention of who was involved in the play besides Lord, but the pictures and scenario are eerily similar.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by brett

If it was the same play it's obvious that the newspaper pic was snapped just after the T202 pic. One thing to keep in mind is that Tannehill also played several games at 2nd base that year. You can see that the shortstop on the T202 card looks lik he's running to cover 2nd base and is almost out of the picture... so maybe that's why he's not in the newspaper shot (not to mention that the newpaper shot is more of a closeup). The back of the T202 makes no mention of who was involved in the play besides Lord, but the pictures and scenario are eerily similar.

That is the same slide! Look at the poles in the backround, with the house and look to the left at the smoke stack to the left of the double-poles, it lines up exactly the same, just to the left, lower and cropped! THAT'S JOE JACKSON.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Is the right arm of Jax in the newspaper pic not much higher up than the arm in the t202? Or am I not seeing it right. Also Lord's left foot appears to be in a different position relative to the bag.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Is the right arm in the newspaper pic not much higher up than the arm in the t202? Or am I not seeing it right.

Clearly the newspaper photo is later into the slide and he is moving in the downward motion to apply the tag. The smoke-stack to the left of the double polls is the giveaway to me. There is no longer a doubt in my mind that this is Shoeless Joe Jackson. Even the BASE has the same markings!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

Clearly the newspaper photo is later into the slide and he is moving in the downward motion to apply the tag. The smoke-stack to the left of the double polls is the giveaway to me. There is no longer a doubt in my mind that this is Shoeless Joe Jackson.

\

I mean Jax's right arm.

[Tcards-Please]

I was looking at the box score that Greg provided of the game in question and I can't make out what position Tannehill was playing? Does that say SS or 3B? It sort of looks like it has 3B, which is the same position as Lord. If that is the case, who was playing short?

The newspaper photo and the T202 photo appear to be of the same play, just not the same exact time. A split second later.

[brett]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Is the right arm of Jax in the newspaper pic not much higher up than the arm in the t202? Or am I not seeing it right. Also Lord's left foot appears to be in a different position relative to the bag.

I just think he's falling further back into his slide, and Lord's feet look exactly the same relative to the bag to me (maybe just taken by a photographer who was standing a little more to the right which could also explain why the shortstop was cut out of the frame).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by brett

I just think he's falling further back into his slide, and Lord's feet look exactly the same relative to the bag to me (maybe just taken by a photographer who was standing a little more to the right which could also explain why the shortstop was cut out of the frame).

I am no expert, but if it's literally only a split second would Jax's arm really have moved that much? Lord's foot looks to me like it's partially behind the bag in one pic and more firmly on it in the other. Maybe it's the angle.

[botn]

It is the angle of the photo and not sure it takes that long to raise your arm up to your face. In the image from the newspaper Joe is almost completely reclined. Look at Lord's head compared to the dark part of the fence in the background.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by botn

It is the angle of the photo and not sure it takes that long to raise your arm up to your face. In the image from the newspaper Joe is almost completely reclined. Look at Lord's head compared to the dark part of the fence in the background.

I don't think it's just the angle, and my guess is in the instant it takes to have slid an extra couple of inches the arm position would not change THAT much. But I am just speculating. I think the absence of the wrap is tougher to explain, at least in terms of whether this is the same play with the same runner.

[brett]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am no expert, but if it's literally only a split second would Jax's arm really have moved that much? Lord's foot looks to me like it's partially behind the bag in one pic and more firmly on it in the other. Maybe it's the angle.

At the speed he was moving it wouldn't take a tenth of a second for his arm to move up that far... FURTHERMORE, if somebody can zoom in on where Joe's leg crosses Lord's you can see where the white of the wrap shows just behind Lord's calf and the rest is either in a shadow or was touched up by the photographer so the readers could see it over the lighter background! I think we've got it now!!!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by brett

At the speed he was moving it wouldn't take a tenth of a second for his arm to move up that far... FURTHERMORE, if somebody can zoom in on where Joe's leg crosses Lord's you can see where the white of the wrap shows just behind Lord's calf and the rest is either in a shadow or was touched up by the photographer so the readers could see it over the lighter background! I think we've got it now!!!

Let's do some math. Say it takes him 4 seconds to go from second to third. That's 22 feet per second, 264 inches per second. So let's generously say the pics are 5 inches apart -- that is 1/50 of a second. Can the arm move that much?

[botn]

Following Geno's theory about the positioning of Tannehill... It is conceivable that Tannehill, after making the throw to Lord, focused his attention back to the live runner, Lajoie who had hit the ball. To me it appears that he is looking towards 2nd base or in that direction more than towards the plate. Hard to tell exactly where he is in relation to 2nd base. Anyway this is speculation. Again it is troubling the white wrap or sock is not seen in the newspaper image.

[dstudeba]

Originally Posted by botn

Again it is troubling the white wrap or sock is not seen in the newspaper image.

If you look at the third baseman's left leg it is dark also so maybe it is shadowing.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by dstudeba

If you look at the third baseman's left leg it is dark also so maybe it is shadowing.

Good point. That would explain the darkness on Jackson's shin/foot area.

[Exhibitman]

I'm convinced it is most likely Jackson; let the gold rush begin!

I'd still rather have a T200 Cleveland to have a Jackson card.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I'd still rather have a T200 Cleveland to have a Jackson card.

Yeah - I think some folks think that if this is confirmed as Jackson it's going to make the T202 super valuable - let's remember that the ceiling for the value on the T202 probably shouldn't be more then the T200 that shows his face and identifies him by name. That one only sells for a 2-3x premium over a common.

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I'd still rather have a T200 Cleveland to have a Jackson card.

I would rather have the T200 as well.

Originally Posted by brett

If somebody is still saying "no" right now they're either blind, stubborn, or in denial (possibly all of the above) in which case their credibility has just gone right down the crapper.

I don't think anyone is saying "no", but not everyone is saying 100% "yes". With that said, I do think it is probably him and thanks for a great thread.