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

Cat · #1 05-23-2010, 07:50 PM

I'm only here because this keeps getting popped to the top and I can't avoid viewing train-wrecks. It looks like it could be Jackson to me but since I don't own the card and don't want to own a version of that card, I'm just trying to be objective, which, I guess, means my opinion is worthless.

teetwoohsix · #2 05-23-2010, 08:06 PM

In Franks post, where he stacked the three photos on top of each other, and the two on the bottom said to be Jackson--I can see why the OP would believe the inner panel to be Jackson.To me, it does look like him.Also, in the stacked photos, there is a similarity in the way the player is sliding into the base.IMO.

Clayton

Peter_Spaeth · #3 05-23-2010, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

In Franks post, where he stacked the three photos on top of each other, and the two on the bottom said to be Jackson--I can see why the OP would believe the inner panel to be Jackson.To me, it does look like him.Also, in the stacked photos, there is a similarity in the way the player is sliding into the base.IMO.

Clayton

I don't think anyone would dispute the resemblance. But in a situation such as this, where the photo was not identified as Jax when the card was issued, the proponent of the position has a very high burden of proof and as Mark and others have pointed out that burden cannot be satisfied on the basis of the tiny photo with the hair covered and the eyes obscured.

teetwoohsix · #4 05-23-2010, 08:22 PM

I agree Peter,,,and I am the last person on this board to be indentifying players from photo's

,,,,,,,I'll stick with tooling along on my T206 quest

Clayton

bmarlowe1 · #5 05-23-2010, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

Can you be any more of a Debbie Downer. This is one of the more interesting threads I have read on here in awhile. No need to pee in everyone's Cheerios.

originally posted by botn
Agreed. Each post T206DK has made on this thread is filled with hostility. Why not find another sandbox to play in? Nobody here needs the chip on your shoulder.

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

I am firmly with TD206DK on this. There were a few interesting posts on this thread - but many of them were simply irrationally ludicrous and symptomatic of the problems that plague the hobby. You can find more than a few excellent recent threads on photo ident. - this is not one of them.

And no - I'm neither mad nor hostile.

sportscardtheory · #6 05-23-2010, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

Can you be any more of a Debbie Downer. This is one of the more interesting threads I have read on here in awhile. No need to pee in everyone's Cheerios.

originally posted by botn
Agreed. Each post T206DK has made on this thread is filled with hostility. Why not find another sandbox to play in? Nobody here needs the chip on your shoulder.

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

I am firmly with TD206DK on this. There were a few interesting posts on this thread - but many of them were simply irrationally ludicrous and symptomatic of the problems that plague the hobby. You can find more than a few excellent recent threads on photo ident. - this is not one of them.

And no - I'm neither mad nor hostile.

So curiosity is a problem that plagues the hobby? Sorry, I don't get what you mean. Someone brought something up, and people are discussing it on a discussion board. What is ludicrous and symptomatic about discussing a curiosity.

botn · #7 05-23-2010, 09:03 PM

sportscardtheory,

Guess you did not read the fine print. Only Mark can make any comments on photo id. The rest of have to sit back and be silent until he has spoken.

bmarlowe1 · #8 05-23-2010, 09:25 PM

[quote=sportscardtheory;What is ludicrous and symptomatic about discussing a curiosity.[/quote]

What is ludicrous is that this can have affect on the card's price (actually on that I don't really care). What is also ludicrous is the way you jumped on TD206DK because he strongly disagreed with you. He wasn't peeing on your cheerios - he was trying to say something rational. You actually didn't say anything substantive in response to his arguments.

David R · #9 05-23-2010, 08:42 PM

I think it's Jackson. And thanks to the original poster for such a great topic. As usual, a few skunks showed up at the garden party to make things interesting.

bmarlowe1 · #10 05-23-2010, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David R

I think it's Jackson. And thanks to the original poster for such a great topic. As usual, a few skunks showed up at the garden party to make things interesting.

I guess that applies to me - so, David, exactly what is your point?

SethY · #11 05-23-2010, 08:49 PM

I guess I'll be one of the first to say the "Baker gets his man" also depicts Jackson. It was brought up earlier in the thread but hasn't gotten as much attention. Anyone agree? It seems like a much clearer picture of the same player on Cleveland.

botn · #12 05-23-2010, 08:58 PM

Quote:

I am firmly with TD206DK on this. There were a few interesting posts on this thread - but many of them were simply irrationally ludicrous and symptomatic of the problems that plague the hobby. You can find more than a few excellent recent threads on photo ident. - this is not one of them.

And like anyone you are entitled to your opinion but a thread getting as many posts and views as this one has, would say otherwise. Not sure how you can categorize this thread as irrational and ludicrous when we are simply tossing about ideas about a photo. I certainly do not agree that this process is adding to what plagues the hobby. Maybe just a bit less drama from you, no?

teetwoohsix · #13 05-23-2010, 09:04 PM

I have not seen many posts in this thread pointing out why it is NOT Jackson-just curious to hear why it is not him? To me, I can see the similarities in those stacked photos-and I am as lousy as it gets in identifying mystery players............

Clayton

And no,,I am not one of the one's who ran out and bought this card

mark evans · #14 05-23-2010, 08:14 PM

I think this thread is an example of the Board at its best. A fascinating question, implicating areas for research, and involving one of baseball's most controversial and collectible players on a vintage set, regardless whether or not the question can be definitively answered.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1940 Play Ball JOE DiMAGGIO Signed Card PSA/DNA	joedawolf	1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T	3	12-15-2009 09:30 AM
Shoeless Joe Jackson signed, or did Joe's wife sign for him?	tcrowntom	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	0	06-07-2009 10:30 AM
CAN SOMEONE HELP?---EBay: A seller has a 1915 Cracker Jack Ty Cobb & Shoeless Joe $4500+	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	44	11-16-2005 11:48 AM
A couple of nice Shoeless Joe Jackson PSA cards for sale!!!!!!	Archive	Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T	2	04-29-2005 03:12 PM
Shoeless Joe	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	7	02-04-2005 10:52 PM