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

[Misunderestimated]

I can't believe that I didn't read this thread sooner ... Actually I skimmed some of it so please excuse any redundancies ...
the facts that that there is no side panel of JJ in the set is not explained by the fact that the side panels are with 1 exception* were limited to cards in the T205 set (the portraits were apparently created for that set ) and JJ was not included in that set. The T205 set drawings in turn would not have included JJ since he was not in the majors in 1910.
The center photos don't always identify the people in the pictures they often focus on whomever the title references and talk about him. Here the title player was Harry Lord so his "victim" in the play was not identified. The same holds true of the Elberfeld center photo cards.
I think someone may have noted this before but many of the photos in the T202 set appear in other places and at least one (the most famous one) was taken by Charles Conlon so perhaps it is possible to figure out from somewhere else -- some photo book or archive -- who Lord was tagging.

One other thought -- it stands to reason that the photos in the set (there are 76 of them as I recall) were not taken at different games. So maybe the mystery can be solved (or at least further illuminated) by figuring out which games between the Cleveland and the Chisox were in other photos (if there are any) in the set....
Anyway over the weekend I'm going to look at my T202s and see if I can add anything to this project.





----
* Smokey Joe Wood whose debut was in 1911 was even more celebrated than JJs (among other reasons: he played for Boston not Cleveland)

[packs]

Harry Lord joined the White Sox on August 9th 1910 and appeared in 44 games for them that season, every game from 101 to 156. In all 44 games he played third base. Of these 44 games, the White Sox played Cleveland 4 times. According to Baseball-Reference, Lord played in each game.

There was a double header on September 5th.
Then a 2 game series was played over October 1st and 2nd.

This photo could be from any of those four games. Joe Jackson made his debut for Cleveland on July 30th and played in 20 games that year. Did he play in any of these four games? I don't know but you would have to if you were going to say Joe Jax was caught at third in 1910 as well.

[nolemmings]

The four 1910 White Sox-Indians games you cite were all played in Chicago. The photo depicted on the T202 card shows the Cleveland player in a home uniform, meaning the game was played there. Harry Lord did not play for the White Sox in Cleveland in 1910--see my last post. Hence, the game depicted on the card took place in 1911, as again, Harry Lord was not a Chicago third baseman IN CLEVELAND until that year.

[packs]

You're right. The plot thickens.

[brett]

Originally Posted by Misunderestimated

I think someone may have noted this before but many of the photos in the T202 set appear in other places and at least one (the most famous one) was taken by Charles Conlon so perhaps it is possible to figure out from somewhere else -- some photo book or archive -- who Lord was tagging.

It's already been figured out and documented earlier in this post from a 1911 Cleveland newspaper picture. Look back through this thread and you'll see it.

[Rob L]

Wow. I lurk every couple of months to see what has been happening. This thread is wild. I tried to clean up the article photo a bit with Lightroom and photoshop to see if there was any other detail. The major wrinkle in the right sleeve is visible in both photos. It looks like the interpretation that the sun was high is correct and the newspaper photo does seem to show Lord's shadow cast over the foot and the knee. There may be evidence of the white wrap just passed Lord's leg while the rest is covered in shadow.

Just another interpretation. Fascinating thread!!

[brett]

Nice additional work Rob. I appreciate the help I've gotten from you and everyone else throughout this post. Because of our collective effort I can now tell people with 100% certainty that I'm the guy who discovered what is now known as a "new" Shoeless Joe Jackson card... and that 's pretty cool. Thanks.

[PolarBear]

If you discovered some modesty, that would be pretty cool too.

[ElCabron]

Wait, what???

I'm sorry if I'm not understanding this correctly and it was explained earlier in the thread. I just glanced at the last few posts to see why the hell it was bumped to the top of the board again.

So, what does that newspaper photo have to do with the image on the T202??? It's clearly not the same photo (if this was already pointed out I apologize) and it's not evidence of anything other than Joe Jackson actually wore a proper Cleveland uniform. How does the newspaper fit in as a piece of "evidence" for this "discovery" that was worthy of over 600 posts?

-Ryan

[nolemmings]

Ryan, these are the arguments:

1. The T202 shows Lord of Chicago tagging a Cleveland player at a game played in Cleveland. Harry Lord did not play for the ChiSox in Cleveland until 1911. Thus the t202 card shows game action from 1911.

2. The photo is from a 1911 game at Cleveland against the White Sox in which Harry Lord was the third baseman for Chicago, and Jackson was tagged out at third. The accompanying story confirms that Joe Jackson was the only Clevelander to be retired at 3b that day.

3. The photo and the card image were taken at the same stadium, and the angle of the two photos was very similar--not unusual given where photogs were allowed to position themselves in foul territory.

4. There are remarkable similarities in at least the fielder's uniform and the characteristics of the base to suggest that these photos were taken moments apart.

5. JoeJax was one of only a few Indians (apparently) to wear that white half-sock in 1911.


To be more certain, we could analyze the other ten games played between these two teams in Cleveland that year, to see if other Indians were retired in a tag play at third with Harry Lord manning the base. The play does not appear to be a caught stealing, given the position of Lord's feet to the runner and base, so we are left with a throw from an infielder or outfielder to 3b. That is not a common play, but not freakishly rare either. Then, if such other tag plays occurred, there might be the matter of the sock too, although I suppose any player could have been wearing that type of sock on that particular day for whatever reason. Still, from what's been provided so far, it seems more likely than not that the t202 shows Joe.

[botn]

Originally Posted by NoizeBringer

Wait, what???

I'm sorry if I'm not understanding this correctly and it was explained earlier in the thread. I just glanced at the last few posts to see why the hell it was bumped to the top of the board again.

So, what does that newspaper photo have to do with the image on the T202??? It's clearly not the same photo (if this was already pointed out I apologize) and it's not evidence of anything other than Joe Jackson actually wore a proper Cleveland uniform. How does the newspaper fit in as a piece of "evidence" for this "discovery" that was worthy of over 600 posts?

-Ryan

Glancing at the last few posts on a 600 plus post is a very reasonable approach to getting an understanding the content of a thread. In fact I do the same thing when I pick up a novel to read. I just go to the last page. Boy does that save time and I can read a few dozen a day.

I don't want to make you any angrier than you already are, though I am not entirely sure that is possible, but the last part of this thread was discussing a second T202 which may contain an image of Jackson. So this thread contains 2 different newspaper photos and 2 different T202s. Maybe once you get your blood pressure down you can identify the card and newspaper image to which you are referring.