Getting the Record Straight Shoeless Joe Jackson Military service

[hugginsandscott]

Originally Posted by Dave Grob

I think you will be very hard pressed to find documentary evidence of Joe Jackson ever serving in uniform. Being ordered for induction did not equate to military service in uniform at this time. It meant, in accordance with the “work or fight policy” that Jackson was required to find employment directly related to supporting and advancing the war effort or join the uniformed ranks. “Being ordered for induction” meant that he was found physically fit and without any sort of other exemption that would have allowed him another option other than military service or, as stated above, to find employment directly related to supporting and advancing the war effort.

With respect to “being ordered to build ships”, this would not have been an order as this work was carried out in ship yards not under the control or supervision of the United States Army, and certainly not by the Camp Surgeons Office, Special Examining Board” on December 4, 1918 at Camp Meade, MD.

If you research and look at the July 1918 edition of Baseball Magazine you will find:

“Joe Jackson was the most noted player levied on by the draft during May—and, as already remarked, decided to go to a war-helping plant instead of active service”.

Or the December 1918 edition of Baseball Magazine (page 81) you will find reference to Jackson “building ships” and playing ball for the Harlan Shipbuilding Plant in Wilmington, Delaware.

I suspect that a deep dive into local contemporary newspapers would yield similar information that would flesh out the time line. Nice vintage photographic but I don’t think objective source information supports it being Joe Jackson.

Dave Grob
DaveGrob1@aol.com

One thing we cannot do is say that he is "in uniform" in this picture. He is one only a handful of the 173 people in an overcoat (while most are in full uniform). He is wearing a hat, but that could have been given to him for the purpose of the photo. We are running this photo because we believe it is "Shoeless" Joe Jackson. There is evidence to support that he toured various military operations in and around the Mid-Atlantic area following his tenure in the Bethlehem Steel League and prior to Spring Training of 1919.
The photo is certainly a type 1 period photo from Camp Meade, MD and it's dated December 4, 1918.

I would be curious if Mike Nola has any documentation showing that Jackson was back in South Carolina by early December, however I would suspect that would be very difficult to obtain. It is in our opinion that the man in the back of that photograph is Joe Jackson; hence we are offering it as such.
thanks,
Josh Wulkan
Huggins and Scott Auctions

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by hugginsandscott

I would be curious if Mike Nola has any documentation showing that Jackson was back in South Carolina by early December, however I would suspect that would be very difficult to obtain. It is in our opinion that the man in the back of that photograph is Joe Jackson; hence we are offering it as such.
thanks,
Josh Wulkan
Huggins and Scott Auctions

Josh - you guys should know better. In any case, the crappy scan posted by the OP is just good enough to show the distinctively different ear shape (right ear - viewer's left) - this tells us that it can't possibly be Jackson - end of story (at least it should be).

I challenge you to post a nice hi-res of the face and then I'll tell you what else is wrong with it (though once you have an ear mismatch, nothing else matters). Neither you nor the OP have any idea as to how to do this.

[Runscott]

This method of 'proof' would get you a reprimand from a junior high school math or science teacher.

So all you have to do is go with the idea that there is evidence that Joe Jackson 'might' have been touring military installations in the Mid-Atlantic at a particular time, then locate military photos from that period and area, then find someone who resembles Jackson....and it becomes Jackson...because no one can prove that Jackson was in a different location at the time that photo was taken?

Besides failing the very general test of 'Does it even look like Jackson?', failing the more specific test of facial characteristics;e.g-chin and ear fail, you are also failing to deliver any evidence that he WAS there; instead, asking for proof that he was not?!?

[Econteachert205]

The ear is a smoking gun for me. Plus that jawline at the chin.

[Lordstan]

Josh,
First off, I have to say that I like your auction House. Though I have never bid, I have been tempted on numerous occasions, but had to hold off due to other factors.
I am disappointed that you would take this stance. Beside the mismatched ear, The photo clearly states "Camp Surgeons Office, Special Examining Board. Why would a visiting baseball star be included in an official photo? I mean, I could see an informal group photo with a bunch of soldiers, but an official staff photo? Seems a bit far fetched to me. On top of that, he is buried in the back. If you had a star like him coming to visit your group and you wanted to take a photo, why would you hide him in the back dressed like everyone else? I think they would put him front and center to show off that the group met that star.

All that aside, the ear doesn't match. To quote myself from another thread, as it bears repeating "The one thing main point that I learned about facial recognition by watching Mark(Bmarlowe) go through his facial analysis is this. It doesn't matter how many parts of the face do match, if one, and it needs to be only one, part doesn't match, it's not the same person. The exceptions are differences that can be explained by age, illness/surgery/injury, or weight gain."

[yanks12025]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Josh,
First off, I have to say that I like your auction House. Though I have never bid, I have been tempted on numerous occasions, but had to hold off due to other factors.
I am disappointed that you would take this stance. Beside the mismatched ear, The photo clearly states "Camp Surgeons Office, Special Examining Board. Why would a visiting baseball star be included in an official photo? I mean, I could see an informal group photo with a bunch of soldiers, but an official staff photo? Seems a bit far fetched to me. On top of that, he is buried in the back. If you had a star like him coming to visit your group and you wanted to take a photo, why would you hide him in the back dressed like everyone else? I think they would put him front and center to show off that the group met that star.

All that aside, the ear doesn't match. To quote myself from another thread, as it bears repeating "The one thing main point that I learned about facial recognition by watching Mark(Bmarlowe) go through his facial analysis is this. It doesn't matter how many parts of the face do match, if one, and it needs to be only one, part doesn't match, it's not the same person. The exceptions are differences that can be explained by age, illness/surgery/injury, or weight gain."

I thought it was common knowledge that Joe Jackson had some plastic surgery done during this time period, guess he wanted to change his ears.... lol

[wonkaticket]

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-b...l?itemid=77105

Here's a nice one, yeah this is Walker as much as it Jackie Robinson, classic Huggins & Scott I don't need ask Mark if this is Moses.

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-b...l?itemid=77099

As for Jackson photo above who knows I'm with Mark not thinking it's Jackson. How about this Jackson? I thought these were fantasy items proved to be not good long ago?

[Tigerden]

Actually the guy may in fact be Robert Deniro's grandfather at second glance. Mole on cheek and all. At the end of the day it may just be a $175 WW1 panorama photo that can be found in most antique stores in America. Hell even if it was Jackson which we can all agree is a major stretch would it really be worth much money to a sports collector ? It would be nothing more than a novelty and a where's Waldo conversation piece .

[EVAJOY91]

To all who responded. What i find very disappointing is that this shoeless joe jackson military panoramic photo was first posted back in july. It's hard for me to believe that not one who responded today didn't see the original post in july. I have 5 other photos which was used for photo comparison. They were from 1917, 1918 and 1919. All show the bump on the chin. The nose is exact haircut and eyebrows are a match. I think a good pair of glasses are needed here. I have been working all day today as i have back in july getting 100% agreement with this photo. This jackson panoramic was at this years national. Bill goodwin, ha auction and legendary auctions looked at the photos. All agreed that they believed this to be jackson. Today, my wife was at home with 15 women. She was giving a west german mid century vase party to where the women who attended were able to buy her collection of vases. After all this confusion i waited to the end of her party and asked the 15 woman to look at each photo i presented to them on my mac computer. I asked each woman if the man in photo #1 in the top hat looked like the man in the baseball uniform. All 15 woman said yes. "they were the same person" all the woman heard of shoeless joe jackson but only 2 had ever saw a photo of him. I told them after all agreed that the two photos were of the same man. Again, opinions are objective. But when you get 13 woman who had never seen a photograph of joe jackson and when you asked them (15) to look at each man in both photos for comparisons and they all agree that they were the same person well, what more can be said?

[CW]

Originally Posted by EVAJOY91

To all who responded. What i find very disappointing is that this shoeless joe jackson military panoramic photo was first posted back in july. It's hard for me to believe that not one who responded today didn't see the original post in july. I have 5 other photos which was used for photo comparison. They were from 1917, 1918 and 1919. All show the bump on the chin. The nose is exact haircut and eyebrows are a match. I think a good pair of glasses are needed here. I have been working all day today as i have back in july getting 100% agreement with this photo.

The fact that you do not even mention the ears of the subject in multiple posts shows that you really have zero knowledge in the field of facial recognition. Repeating the same thing numerous times does not make it true. Your only disappointment should be with the final realized price on your piece (assuming H&S are dumb enough to run it to fruition) which will be severely lower than expected.

Once Mark (bmarlowe1) states his educated opinion on this matter, it's pretty much case closed. Trust me on this. You are starting to embarrass yourself. Mark knows his shit, and the man has pretty much stated that it is not Shoeless Joe.

Ah, how the lure of a quick buck will make people stoop to desperate measures. This would apply to both the consignor and the auction house.

Also, maybe I'm off here, but shouldn't the OP have his/her full name out there?

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by EVAJOY91

To all who responded. What i find very disappointing is that this shoeless joe jackson military panoramic photo was first posted back in july. It's hard for me to believe that not one who responded today didn't see the original post in july. I have 5 other photos which was used for photo comparison. They were from 1917, 1918 and 1919. All show the bump on the chin. The nose is exact haircut and eyebrows are a match. I think a good pair of glasses are needed here. I have been working all day today as i have back in july getting 100% agreement with this photo. This jackson panoramic was at this years national. Bill goodwin, ha auction and legendary auctions looked at the photos. All agreed that they believed this to be jackson. Today, my wife was at home with 15 women. She was giving a west german mid century vase party to where the women who attended were able to buy her collection of vases. After all this confusion i waited to the end of her party and asked the 15 woman to look at each photo i presented to them on my mac computer. I asked each woman if the man in photo #1 in the top hat looked like the man in the baseball uniform. All 15 woman said yes. "they were the same person" all the woman heard of shoeless joe jackson but only 2 had ever saw a photo of him. I told them after all agreed that the two photos were of the same man. Again, opinions are objective. But when you get 13 woman who had never seen a photograph of joe jackson and when you asked them (15) to look at each man in both photos for comparisons and they all agree that they were the same person well, what more can be said?

You're correct it was posted and was a small pic if I remember, it was also posted in a "show" your display items type thread so most wouldn't have piled on or given much thought I know I didn't. I think I might have even said neat item etc.

Now that it's for sale and with big pictures, and claims it's going to be inspected a bit more.

This is like when you hyped your overprint T206. You got folks talking looking to help your sale/consignment. Sadly the talking here on this item isn't 100% it's cool good luck as it was with the T206.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by EVAJOY91

To all who responded. What i find very disappointing is ....... 5 other photos which was used for photo comparison. They were from 1917, 1918 and 1919. All show the bump on the chin. The nose is exact haircut and eyebrows are a match. I think a good pair of glasses are needed here.

EVAJOY91 - What you don't understand (and perhaps Josh did not realize) is that Huggins & Scott recently hired me to identify faces in an early baseball photo. They didn't hire hire you (nor did they apparently leave to to Josh). Why do you think that is the case? (I'm thinking they may not do it again )

As for the "Fleet Walker" photo mentioned above by Wonka (below far left), lot 237, which not surprisingly also originated with EVAJOY91, http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=190922 - obviously not 19thC uniforms, and more obviously not Walker:

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by EVAJOY91

....I think a good pair of glasses are needed here....

At least with respect to photo ID, it seems there has been a significant improvement in auction house behavior in recent years. This change is correlated with (and likely influenced by) the emergence of at least several people outside of the AHs who have demonstrated that they are really good at this. That has fostered an increase in both healthy skepticism at auction houses and a general improvement in photo ID skills among the collecting population.

I have been fortunate to participate in all this as a consultant on early baseball photo ID to collectors, auction houses (including Huggins and Scott), major libraries (Library of Congress, Boston Public Library),authors, and most importantly I have written more articles on this subject than I can count for SABR. As such, I am more than willing to match my skills against deluded collectors and German vase enthusiasts.

It is the behavior of the auction house with respect to this photo and the “Fleet Walker” image that is most disturbing. The wholly irrational commentary posted here by the AH in response to arguments of well-known experts is appalling and should be embarrassing. Mike Nola has shown himself to be a high quality researcher and he is probably the preeminent Joe Jackson expert, and Dave Grob is the best memorabilia researcher and authenticator I know of. Add to that the ear discrepancy, and you have one of the worst examples of nonsense that I have seen on net54.

Mar.kFim0ff
co-chairman
SABR – Pictrorial History Committee

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by hugginsandscott

One thing we cannot do is say that he is "in uniform" in this picture. He is one only a handful of the 173 people in an overcoat (while most are in full uniform). He is wearing a hat, but that could have been given to him for the purpose of the photo. We are running this photo because we believe it is "Shoeless" Joe Jackson. There is evidence to support that he toured various military operations in and around the Mid-Atlantic area following his tenure in the Bethlehem Steel League and prior to Spring Training of 1919.
The photo is certainly a type 1 period photo from Camp Meade, MD and it's dated December 4, 1918.

I would be curious if Mike Nola has any documentation showing that Jackson was back in South Carolina by early December, however I would suspect that would be very difficult to obtain. It is in our opinion that the man in the back of that photograph is Joe Jackson; hence we are offering it as such.
thanks,
Josh Wulkan
Huggins and Scott Auctions

LOL...that's the worst argument in the history of this forum. Such a leap of faith might lead one to believe your auction house would take leaps of faith with other types of memorabilia too.

I honestly can't believe that you're going to run this photo. It's embarrassing.

[honus94566]

Originally Posted by hugginsandscott

One thing we cannot do is say that he is "in uniform" in this picture. He is one only a handful of the 173 people in an overcoat (while most are in full uniform). He is wearing a hat, but that could have been given to him for the purpose of the photo. We are running this photo because we believe it is "Shoeless" Joe Jackson. There is evidence to support that he toured various military operations in and around the Mid-Atlantic area following his tenure in the Bethlehem Steel League and prior to Spring Training of 1919.
The photo is certainly a type 1 period photo from Camp Meade, MD and it's dated December 4, 1918.

I would be curious if Mike Nola has any documentation showing that Jackson was back in South Carolina by early December, however I would suspect that would be very difficult to obtain. It is in our opinion that the man in the back of that photograph is Joe Jackson; hence we are offering it as such.
thanks,
Josh Wulkan
Huggins and Scott Auctions

I am a latecomer to this thread, but wow, just wow...

After the "Partial Possible T206 Wagner" back and other debacles I have stopped supporting H&S.

This kind of garbage just reinforces that was the correct decision.

Come on H&S! You guys should be absolutely embarrassed of yourselves.

I do appreciate the comedy, though. Makes my workday more entertaining.

[Ladder7]

Originally Posted by honus94566

Come on H&S! You guys should be absolutely embarrassed of yourselves.

No worries. The buyer's fee cures all embarrassment.