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

Sterling Sports Auctions · #1 05-24-2010, 12:17 AM

First of all I have to say this has turned out to be a great thread until the alien arrived.

There has been a suggestion here that this was not known or thought of in the T202s. I have to disagree, I have seriously been collecting T202s for 10 years and from corresponding with fellow T202 collectors the subject had been brought up that one or more of the center panels might be Jackson.

Another confirmation that this might have been thought by some collecting T202s is the fact that I have found the card to always have commanded a slight premium for a common.

This is not the first example of information known in the hobby for years but if the right person puts out the possibility and gets a good response, than an explosion happens which happened here.

I do love the effort that has been put out to try and find out if the speculation is correct.

Lee

barrysloate · #2 05-24-2010, 05:53 AM

Even if it turns out conclusively that it is not Jackson, I think this has been a terrific thread. We've examined every shred of evidence we can come up with, and of course it may lead us to say the original poster was wrong. But the process has been worthwhile, and least for me. I've read every post and agreed with some, questioned others. I know Mark approaches photo i.d. forensically but nobody else on the board has that skill, so we use the trial and error method. It still has been fun.

benjulmag · #3 05-24-2010, 05:59 AM

Why must we assume that the center panel photos on T202's were 1911 images? I recognize that the issue was released in 1912, but why then must it follow that only 1911 images were used? For example, with T206's, hasn't it been recognized within the hobby that many of the photos from which the images were based were taken a good several years earlier? Why then couldn't the same apply with T202's?

EDITED to add that if one, by looking at changes in uniform styles, could establish that at least one center panel photo had to have been taken prior to 1911, that would seem to put into issue, absent other evidence, when any center panel photo was taken. Tim, in post #56, in fact does that opining that with this "Jackson T202", it had to predate 1911. So if not 1911, why then not, say, 1908 or 1909?

HercDriver · #4 05-24-2010, 06:39 AM

I agree that there's no guarentee that it's a 1911 photo...but it's the best guess. I'd never buy the card just for the fact that it's a Shoeless Joe, but it's fun to try to prove/disprove it.

One other thing to help narrow down the box score is by looking for an Indian CS and a PO for Harry Lord. Thirdbaseman don't get many putouts, so if you had a Jackson (or somebody else) CS with a Lord PO (and a Sullivan assist), that might be a possibility...

Take Care,
Geno

brett · #5 05-24-2010, 07:44 AM

.

brett · #6 05-24-2010, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Why must we assume that the center panel photos on T202's were 1911 images? I recognize that the issue was released in 1912, but why then must it follow that only 1911 images were used? For example, with T206's, hasn't it been recognized within the hobby that many of the photos from which the images were based were taken a good several years earlier? Why then couldn't the same apply with T202's?

You are correct. Some of the cards from this set have older pictures. For example, the Lajoie and some of the Birmingham cards show them wearing Cleveland uniforms from a few years earlier. However, this card is definitely from 1911 because 1911 was both Lord's first full season with Chicago and Shoeless Joe's first full season with Cleveland AND (coincidently) the year where he wore a white wrap on his right ankle as seen in this picture from that year...

Abravefan11 · #7 05-24-2010, 09:18 AM

Brett concerning the ankle wrap it's already been pointed out that several other players in the same photo are wearing one as well. As much as I would like for this to be some type of definitive proof that the T202 was Joe it's not.

Matt · #8 05-24-2010, 09:31 AM

Saying the photo must be 1911 because Shoeless Joe is in it, is circular. Maybe it's 1909 and that is someone else.

brett · #9 05-24-2010, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

Saying the photo must be 1911 because Shoeless Joe is in it, is circular. Maybe it's 1909 and that is someone else.

Wrong, because Harry Lord (the Chicago player on 3rd base) didn't play a full season in Chicago until 1911 after being traded from Boston and the only games he played against Cleveland in 1910 were in Chicago. This picture was taken in Cleveland meaning that it is DEFINITELY from 1911.

Matt · #10 05-24-2010, 09:39 AM

nm

brett · #11 05-24-2010, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Brett concerning the ankle wrap it's already been pointed out that several other players in the same photo are wearing one as well. As much as I would like for this to be some type of definitive proof that the T202 was Joe it's not.

It's not several, it's 3 out of 20+ players and none of the other guys look anything like the guy sliding on the T202 card like Joe Jackson does.

Abravefan11 · #12 05-24-2010, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brett

It's not several, it's 3 out of 20+ players and none of the other guys look anything like the guy sliding on the T202 card like Joe Jackson does.

It's 5 on the specific day of this photo but any player on the team could have worn the same wrap on any other day.

brett · #13 05-24-2010, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

It's 5 on the specific day of this photo but any player on the team could have worn the same wrap on any other day.

True enough... but not any other player on the team could put on a wrap and start looking identical to Joe Jackson in the face.

sportscardtheory · #14 05-24-2010, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

It's 5 on the specific day of this photo but any player on the team could have worn the same wrap on any other day.

It's 3 players with the C on their uniform.

Edited - I see now. The photo extended further than I initially looked. I still only count 4.

botn · #15 05-24-2010, 10:21 AM

Quote:

EDITED to add that if one, by looking at changes in uniform styles, could establish that at least one center panel photo had to have been taken prior to 1911, that would seem to put into issue, absent other evidence, when any center panel photo was taken. Tim, in post #56, in fact does that opining that with this "Jackson T202", it had to predate 1911. So if not 1911, why then not, say, 1908 or 1909?

Tim merely showed pics from the uniform database which showed that the uniforms from 1911 did not have the inner black collar. On post #64 I showed a picture of Jackson in his home uniform from a game in 1911 with an inner black collar, so the image of the sliding Cleveland player can still be from 1911. If it could be proved the image was from 1910 or earlier there is no way it is Shoeless on the T202. Shoeless joined the team for the last 20 games of the 1910 season and Cleveland did not host Chicago in the 20 game span.

brett · #16 05-24-2010, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by botn

Tim merely showed pics from the uniform database which showed that the uniforms from 1911 did not have the inner black collar. On post #64 I showed a picture of Jackson in his home uniform from a game in 1911 with an inner black collar, so the image of the sliding Cleveland player can still be from 1911. If it could be proved the image was from 1910 or earlier there is no way it is Shoeless on the T202. Shoeless joined the team for the last 20 games of the 1910 season and Cleveland did not host Chicago in the 20 game span.

It IS proven that the picture is from 1911. Forget about when Shoeless Joe played because Harry Lord (the Chicago 3rd baseman) didn't play a full season in Chicago until 1911 after being traded from Boston and the only games HE played against Cleveland in 1910 were in Chicago. This picture was taken in Cleveland meaning that it HAD TO BE from 1911. Another reason that it's more than likely Joe Jackson.

benjulmag · #17 05-24-2010, 10:44 AM

I'm assuming that the Boston road uniforms in that era do not resemble what Lord is wearing, correct? If incorrect, then we cannot rule out a year predating 1911.

Assuming Lord could not have been wearing such a uniform before 1911 (thereby dating the image to 1911), for those so inclined, there is more that can be done -- looking up newspaper accounts of the games to see if any make mention of plays at third involving Cleveland players. Such research in and of itself will not establish who the player is, but it can give more clues.

botn · #18 05-24-2010, 10:53 AM

I had already suggested in a much earlier post that play by play or detailed box scores might reveal more. Bob Lemke stated he has TSN which would cover games from 1911. I think going to the local paper, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, is going to prove to be the best source.

Matt · #19 05-24-2010, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by botn

I had already suggested in a much earlier post that play by play or detailed box scores might reveal more. Bob Lemke stated he has TSN which would cover games from 1911. I think going to the local paper, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, is going to prove to be the best source.

I posted Joe's info from the May 3-6th homestand above; the paper did not say anything about CS.

bmarlowe1 · #20 05-24-2010, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benjulmag

I'm assuming that the Boston road uniforms in that era do not resemble what Lord is wearing, correct? If incorrect, then we cannot rule out a year predating 1911.

Assuming Lord could not have been wearing such a uniform before 1911 (thereby dating the image to 1911), for those so inclined, there is more that can be done -- looking up newspaper accounts of the games to see if any make mention of plays at third involving Cleveland players. Such research in and of itself will not establish who the player is, but it can give more clues.

Corey - the fielder's uniform appears consistent with the White Sox 1903 - 1912. It's definitely not Boston.

I agree with the comment on newspaper articles. The problem is that they may omit a play at third, so how can one know?

What is needed is to find that photo in a newspaper. Doing it with microfilm is not too bad a job, but doing it online if one has such access to Cleveland papers takes forever (I have tried similar quite few times).

brett · #21 05-24-2010, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benjulmag

I'm assuming that the Boston road uniforms in that era do not resemble what Lord is wearing, correct? If incorrect, then we cannot rule out a year predating 1911.

Assuming Lord could not have been wearing such a uniform before 1911 (thereby dating the image to 1911), for those so inclined, there is more that can be done -- looking up newspaper accounts of the games to see if any make mention of plays at third involving Cleveland players. Such research in and of itself will not establish who the player is, but it can give more clues.

It's CLEARLY a Chicago uniform that Lord is wearing, and it's obviously in Cleveland so it's now been established that the picture is from 1911. There is a lot of evidence now that it's likely Shoeless Joe, and NO evidence that would indicate that it isn't.

Abravefan11 · #22 05-24-2010, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brett

There is a lot of evidence now that it's likely Shoeless Joe, and NO evidence that would indicate that it isn't.

Brett remember that I don't need to have any evidence to say that it's not Joe and you need something factual to say that it is. Right now even with all the things that point to it possibly being Joe you don't have anything definitive to say that it is. With that said I encourage you and everyone else to keep looking.

benjulmag · #23 05-24-2010, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brett

It's CLEARLY a Chicago uniform that Lord is wearing, and it's obviously in Cleveland so it's now been established that the picture is from 1911. There is a lot of evidence now that it's likely Shoeless Joe, and NO evidence that would indicate that it isn't.

Brett,

That's not how photo ID works. The burden is not on me to prove it is not Joe Jackson. Rather, it's your burden to prove it is. Collectively the posts on this thread make a compelling case it might very well be Jackson. But can you PROVE no other Cleveland players that year did not wear a white ankle wrap, or did not have facial features that RESEMBLE Jackson's? In my experiences with photo ID, I can tell you there have been a number of instances such as this where people in the utmost of good faith thought an image depicted someone, only to subsequently learn it (almost certainly) did not.

Again, I'm not saying it is not Jackson. I'm only saying that without more we'll simply never know.

bmarlowe1 · #24 05-24-2010, 10:51 AM

posted by botn:
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.

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

The arrogance began with your comments directed at T206DK. He is neither diplomatic nor concise - but he was right. It nice enough for folks on the thread to encourage a new poster like Brett - but as can now be seen, with a little encouragement from some board members, he has totally gone off the rails of rationality. If you think that's an arrogant comment, I really don't care.

While Brett apparently does not know, many of us do know (and I believe that includes you) how often these cases of "resemblance" and "I'm sure it's him" turn out when we can get an answer.

The recent thread on "Dimaggio" is a perfect case in point - and that guy really did look like Dimaggio. http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=122231

botn · #25 05-24-2010, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

The arrogance began with your comments directed at T206DK. He is neither diplomatic nor concise - but he was right. It nice enough for folks on the thread to encourage a new poster like Brett - but as can now be seen, with a little encouragement from some board members, he has totally gone off the rails of rationality. If you think that's an arrogant comment, I really don't care.

While Brett apparently does not know, many of us do know (and I believe that includes you) how often these cases of "resemblance" and "I'm sure it's him" turn out when we can get an answer.

The recent thread on "Dimaggio" is a perfect case in point - and that guy really did look like Dimaggio.

Which is why I have stated in every post that more research needs to be done (you know the ones which have not made any sense to you) and even then it may not be conclusive. I have no problem with people cautioning others or being skeptical but there are ways to do it that are more appropriate. Arrogance, and I was being kind when I used that word, is exemplified by your decree that it is threads like this that are destroying the hobby. That is utterly laughable.

Today Brett may have gotten ahead of himself but your denouncing of this thread happened prior to that. And Brett's enthusiasm over the card does not change the points which were made and the research which can still be done. His contribution simply had to be pointing out the card to us.

botn · #26 05-24-2010, 11:22 AM

Hi Matt,

There will be more detail in the local Cleveland paper and possibly TSN. I now have many of the box scores for games in 1911 Chi vs Cle but they came from the New York Times and omit a lot of detail, including the CS stat. I posted an example of one on Saturday.

Greg

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