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

[teetwoohsix]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Quote:

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]

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]

Originally Posted by botn

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.

BOTN - you jumped on TD206DK becaause he didn't agree with you. I've yet to see anything from you on this thread that makes any sense.

Can you explain exactly why you think that guy is Jackson? Would you pay a premium for that card?

[bmarlowe1]

[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.

[HercDriver]

Here's a picture of Cleveland's League Park. As you can see by the right field fence, it does indeed look like the picture was taken from the third base dugout. Along with the fact that Harry Lord was the Sox third baseman, maybe we can see who might have made it to third in any of those games. I know it's a long shot, but if somebody has access to box scores from 1911, here the days the Sox played in Cleveland:

May 3-6
June 28 - July 1 (doubleheader on 28th)
Sept 4 (doubleheader, although I'm not sure this was in Cleveland since they played the previous few games in Chicago - may be a mistake in my source)

Anyway, it might be worth a look...

Take Care,
Geno

[HercDriver]

I meant to add another guess...purely conjecture. If you look at the position of the shortstop on the far right, it would lead one to believe that it is a "caught stealing" since the SS seems to be in postion instead of backing up, cutting off throws, or covering second. Again, totally a guess...but that makes it fun. So who has a box score of those games with a Caught Stealing stat?

Cheers,
Geno

[botn]

Geno,

Pretty sure The Sporting News would list the CS stat as would the local Cleveland paper, The Cleveland Plain Dealer. The description on the back of the card is somewhat vague as to whether it was a caught stealing or an ordinary put out.

Greg

[Matt]

Originally Posted by HercDriver

here the days the Sox played in Cleveland:

May 3-6
June 28 - July 1 (doubleheader on 28th)
Sept 4 (doubleheader, although I'm not sure this was in Cleveland since they played the previous few games in Chicago - may be a mistake in my source)

May 3rd he went 3 for 5 with a double and a run scored.
May 4th he went 0 for 4.
May 5th he went 1 for 4 with a SB
May 6th he went 2 for 3 with a double and a sacrifice bunt before the game was called in the 8th so the Naps could catch a train.

The box scores do not mention any CS in any of the games.

[botn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

BOTN - you jumped on TD206DK becaause he didn't agree with you. I've yet to see anything from you on this thread that makes any sense.

Can you explain exactly why you think that guy is Jackson? Would you pay a premium for that card?

It is how he disagreed Sir Mark, not that he disagreed. None of my posts were drawing conclusions about the image. Since clear photo id cannot be made, I suggested seeing box scores which may reveal more information about the games played between these two teams. If my posts did not make any sense I would say you need to really start buying the magazines for the articles.

No idea if it is Shoeless and I would not pay a premium for it yet nor would I sell it for a premium yet. A bunch of us on a thread tossing about theories and thinking of ways of researching an image on 98 year old card is not going to result in someone paying $15,000 for a NM example. This process is not what is plaguing our hobby. It is exactly what has made the hobby so great.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by botn

It is how he disagreed Sir Mark, not that he disagreed. None of my posts were drawing conclusions about the image.....No idea if it is Shoeless and I would not pay a premium for it yet nor would I sell it for a premium yet. A bunch of us on a thread tossing about theories and thinking of ways of researching an image on 98 year old card is not going to result in someone paying $15,000 for a NM example. This process is not what is plaguing our hobby. It is exactly what has made the hobby so great.

I'm glad to hear that officer BOTN of the "proper forum tone police" is on the beat. There is nothing wrong with what TD206DK said nor how he said it. In fact he did a pretty good job of containing himself.

Sorry if I mis-interpreted your position on JJ. The only way you're going to get an answer is to find the photo.

[botn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

I'm glad to hear that officer BOTN of the "proper forum tone police" is on the beat. There is nothing wrong with what TD206DK said nor how he said it. In fact he did a pretty good job of containing himself.

Sorry if I mis-interpreted your position on JJ. The only way you're going to get an answer is to find the photo.

Well of course you would not find anything wrong with what T206DK wrote since you have posted with a similar attitude. No problem if you think this is a wild goose chase and you maybe right but to lecture us about how evil threads like this are is just absurd. You aren't really this arrogant in person are you?

And there was no way to misinterpret what I wrote on this thread if you actually took the time to read it so not sure what your motivation was to categorize my comments as not making any sense other than to make trouble.

I do agree with you that finding the source of the image would be more telling but I also find being able to read a play by play or detailed box scores could shed some light on this. This card is a long way from being documented as a Jackson card.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

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.

Him carrying-on about UFOs and chiding everyone simply because they are curious is SOOO substantive.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

Him carrying-on about UFOs and chiding everyone simply because they are curious is SOOO substantive.

So, you agree that you didn't say anything substantive in response to him. I guess your argument is neither of you said anything substantive - is that right?

He actually typed in a whole paragraph that was pretty substantive. The substantive point is that the research so far done on this thread, while it was somewhat interesting at first, is headed for a dead end. You have to find the photo or at least a record of it.

I hope my tone is OK with you.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

So, you agree that you didn't say anything substantive in response to him. I guess your argument is neither of you said anything substantive - is that right?

He actually typed in a whole paragraph that was pretty substantive. The substantive point is that the research so far done on this thread, while it was somewhat interesting at first, is headed for a dead end. You have to find the photo or at least a record of it.

I hope my tone is OK with you.

Why are you so angry? lol Light some candles...take a bubble bath...listen to whale songs.

[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.

[bmarlowe1]

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]

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]

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]

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

[bmarlowe1]

[quote=teetwoohsix;811132]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

Clayton

Clayton - you have things in reverse. You have to tell us why one should conclude that extremely blurry photo is Jackson. How is anyone supposed to show you that it's not Jackson when all we have is the vaguest impression of a face. We just can't know. No one has said this isn't Jackson.

What we do know is that the facial recogntion part of the brain is easily fooled. It doesn't matter if it "resembles" Jackson.

[teetwoohsix]

Hi Mark-

Well, I know this is your area of expertise, so I'm not going to begin to try to tell you why it's Jackson

But, I do have to admit, this is a convincing one to me.......at the very least, a great topic !!!

Clayton