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

[brett]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

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.

Exactly. It would be great if this turns out to be Jackson, but absent a corroborating photo from a newspaper or archive you just can't say with any certainty that it is Jackson.

Despite the minor blow ups this thread really is a great one and despite what others might say this really is good for the hobby to have these types of discussions.

[brett]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Exactly. It would be great if this turns out to be Jackson, but absent a corroborating photo from a newspaper or archive you just can't say with any certainty that it is Jackson.

Dan, I understand what you're saying, but if I show you a photo of Barack Obama without a corroborating photo from a newspaper or archive does that mean you can't say without certainty that it's him? There have been many, many instances of newspapers and card companies misidentifying people throughout the years. Does that mean that just because they say it's somebody that it has to be true? Good luck finding the photographer or photo editor from 100 years ago. The same way that an old autograph or jersey is authenticated if everything about it looks consistent with it's day, everything about this card now points to it being Shoeless Joe Jackson... The photo is confirmed to be from 1911, Joe was known to have worn a right ankle wrap that year, he physically looks the same as every other photo that shows him sliding, and most importantly if you've seen enough pics of Shoeless Joe you would know by just looking at his face on that card (not on a low-resolution computer scan) that it's him. The world heard it here on the Net 54 Forum first! You are all very welcome, and if there's any sort of award that comes with this Leon can just accept it on my behalf and donate it to the HOF.

[barrysloate]

Mark- I still think this is a good thread because it has allowed collectors a chance to research a photo and share their findings. That's a lot more than what goes on in most threads around here. The fact that the research may lead to a dead end, or to an erroneous finding, doesn't mean it's not a good one. At least it has made some people think. What's wrong with that?

[benjulmag]

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]

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]

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]

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

[brett]

By the way, it looks like Joe had the white wrap on his right ankle during most or all of the 1911 season. I've also included a closeup of his face from that same year and you'll see the same features as the guy sliding on the card. Also, click on the link below to see a high-resolution scan of the 1911 team and once again, you'll see that Jackson is the only guy who looks just like the guy pictured on the T202.

http://www.blackbetsy.com/imagefarm/...orama-6500.jpg

[bmarlowe1]

posted by botn:
Today Brett may have gotten ahead of himself but your denouncing of this thread happened prior to that.

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

What Brett said today was very predictable and in line with a lot of the previous posts of some board members. It was easy to see where the thread was going, that's why I "denounced" it.

There have been a lot of excellent threads on this board with respect to photo ident. - I'll have to disagree with my friends Barry and Dan, I just don't think this is one of them (though it does have some entertainment value).

If one is seriously interested in what it takes to decipher photos like this, I would arrogantly suggest two articles by the late George Michael that appeared in The Baseball Research Journal a few years back. What should be obvious is that it is nearly impossible to get an answer on this photo - unless you actually find the photo.

Another good example is the Fed Lg photo that Rhys posted recently (the key to figuring out that one was the scoreboard info ).
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=121135
That was an excellent thread and great detective work by Rhys.

Another good one is http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=119887 started by abravefan who has managed to be both very right and very patient and diplomatic on this thread (I need to try that sometime).

These are probably too arrogant for botn, but others might enjoy:
http://tiny.cc/ka9n9 and
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=122362