Getting the Record Straight Shoeless Joe Jackson Military service

[Econteachert205]

Originally Posted by EVAJOY91

Net54 members, today I asked Bill Huggins to pull this shoeless Joe Jackson military panoramic photograph from his upcoming auction. I will further my research because I believe that this is Shoeless Joe. I thank you all for your information and want to thank Hugging & Scott who stood by me till I asked them to pull the item at 12:10pm today Tuesday Sept, 16, 2014.

Consignor did the right thing. I put more of the weight of all this on the auction house anyway.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

Consignor did the right thing. I put more of the weight of all this on the auction house anyway.

Agreed on your latter point. As for the consignor, this thread would likely have suppressed the realized price - I would speculate that is the reason it was pulled.

Now how about pulling that "Fleet Walker" photo?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Agreed on your latter point. As for the consignor, this thread would likely have suppressed the realized price - I would speculate that is the reason it was pulled.

Now how about pulling that "Fleet Walker" photo?

It's more probably that he is trying to get back in good faith with us so that he can do this again in the future with a more credible piece. If such consignors would just be happy with the AH accepting their piece, keep quiet here and take the money from the auction, they would be better off. But like those before him, they try to drum up bidders here in the forum, showing no respect for our intelligence.

Note to EVAJOY91 and others: we're better at this than the auction houses.

[hugginsandscott]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Agreed on your latter point. As for the consignor, this thread would likely have suppressed the realized price - I would speculate that is the reason it was pulled.

Now how about pulling that "Fleet Walker" photo?

Mark,
I didn't pull it, but I modified the description to reflect that it's not Walker, but an unknown African American ball player.

Thanks again for your great and diligent work.
Josh

[bmarlowe1]

Josh - Glad to hear it.

[the-illini]

While you are correcting things, this is not an N173 Old Judge cabinet, despite what the SGC flip says...

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-b...l?itemid=77141

Chris Bland

[the-illini]

I would also question how this was determined to be Amos Rusie....

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-b...l?itemid=77112

Chris Bland

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by the-illini

I would also question how this was determined to be Amos Rusie....

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-b...l?itemid=77112

Chris Bland

Chris,
Who knows.
This photo was discussed here.
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ght=amos+rusie

It's difficult to tell from the photo who it is. The only thing identifying Rusie is the writing on the back that had to be put on in after the late 70's as that is when he was elected to the HOF.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by the-illini

While you are correcting things, this is not an N173 Old Judge cabinet, despite what the SGC flip says...

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-b...l?itemid=77141

Chris Bland

As I said earlier, I'm surprised AH's don't hire someone with broad vintage experience to go over items before publishing.

[Econteachert205]

Originally Posted by Runscott

As I said earlier, I'm surprised AH's don't hire someone with broad vintage experience to go over items before publishing.

This is an interesting point. I don't have the requisite knowledge to join but it would be interesting to have a select group of forum members view privately created threads by auction houses here for a charge. Per diem outside consulting on questionable items.

[the-illini]

Originally Posted by Runscott

As I said earlier, I'm surprised AH's don't hire someone with broad vintage experience to go over items before publishing.

This isn't the first time SGC got a cabinet wrong that sold in Huggins and Scott:

http://dec09.hugginsandscott.com/cgi...l?itemid=16455

Chris Bland

[steve B]

Originally Posted by the-illini

While you are correcting things, this is not an N173 Old Judge cabinet, despite what the SGC flip says...

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-b...l?itemid=77141

Chris Bland

And it's more likely that "Pugg" or possibly "Rugg" is not a tobacco plant but a photographer.

Steve B

[Directly]

I would enjoy replying to this post with my opinion what I call the Ear-thing. I thought it might be better to first ask to allow a heads-up because each time I have a different point of view, insight or even think outside the box, it infuriates a few, and that's not my objective but politely in good taste my goal is to debunk the Ear-thing theory being the 100 percent gospel, I might want to start a new thread--??