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

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

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

I'm not angry - you overlooked my on post #125. In fact, my Blackhawks are going to the finals - I couldn't be happier. Ask constable BOTN why he is soooo angry.

[Cat]

never mind

[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.

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

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]

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]

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]

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

[T206DK]

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.

it seems as though my sarcasm has been lost on some who have read this thread. There's no one on this forum who would appreciate morethan me the fact that this T202 might turn out to have Joe Jackson in the picture, but I think it's a stretch to just come out and say it without being able to back it up with some real proof. BOTN if you think my posts on this thread were filled with hostility , then I'll just say you don't know me very well. I'm one of the most amiable collectors you'll ever meet more than likely.
I wasn't trying to demean the original poster either. It was a good topic to explore. there may be other pictures in this set that have guys that resemble Jackson in them as well. The theories proposed are interesting as well as the reactions of many of this posts readers. Too often card collecting has become a way to make a quick buck off of someone whether it's an honest buck or not is up to the seller. Had anyone tried to sell one of the T202's that flew off Ebay or off of Internet store fronts yesterday as a Jackson T202, we would all be talking about that now for sure. For those of you who don't like me knocking the investors/speculators and card flippers. you can just skip over my posts then. I won't stop talking about what I've seen the hobby degenerate into since the early 90's. It's just this type of person who would read a post such as this an then try to take advantage of unknowing buyers by trying to sell them a Jackson T202 for a massive premium. If you think it wouldn't happen you are naive. Check Ebay out any day of the week and you'll see some of the most ridiculous claims and listings. Each week there's new ones that top the previous weeks hilarity.
So Brett, let me say welcome to this board, and your post was a good one to start with !

[T206DK]

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.

Hmmm, I guess card collectors don't have much of a sense of humor then sportscardtheory. Sorry for mixing in a little here to make a point and peeing on everyone's fire who wants this to be Joe Jackson soooooo very badly. My brother just called me after reading this post and he says there could be more cards in the T202 set that could have resemblences of Jackson in them. He is hoping it turns out to be true so he can sell all 3 of his for inflated prices. How many others are out there waiting to do the same thing ? How many on this board went out and bought a T202 the day this thread was started ? Many of you don't realize how reactionary and opportunistic this hobby of ours has become sometimes. I don't mind pointing it out when I see it. If you are going to slam me and name call for it ....then so be it ! I will be the first to admit, I did not even look for T202's that were for sale after reading this thread. My brother , on the other hand is already on the Collectors universe boards trying to make deals with his buddies to buy more

[brett]

.

[brett]

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]

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.

[brett]

First of all, thanks to everybody for the response to my first ever post! It means a lot because I've been a long-time admirer of this board and in my opinion it's the only intelligent place for discourse with the finest minds in the hobby. Here's why I'm now even more sure than before that it's Joe Jackson... First off, I have this entire set as well as other Shoeless Joe cards so it's not like I'm just being hopeful or trying to talk myself into believing it's him. The last few times I've looked closely at this set, every time I've gotten to that card I've instinctively stopped and said "Holy crap, that's Joe Jackson!". In fact, the other cards in this set that other people now think could also be him (Baker Gets His Man or Too Late For Devlin) I disagree with. The players in those pictures just don't look like Joe to me. Trust me though, when you look at this card IN PERSON it looks JUST LIKE HIM!... The picture isn't blurry at all and you get a very good look at his face. Simply put, it passes the eyeball test. I consider myself to have a tremendous knowledge of Cleveland baseball history as they are my all-time favorite team and I've looked at every Shoeless Joe picture from Cleveland so I'm very familiar with his facial features, build, etc. I obviously thought it was him when I first posted this, but since people started showing pictures of him from the SAME year wearing the SAME white ankle wrap on the SAME right ankle that he's wearing in the T202 picture I now think it's a slam-dunk (and nobody's going to convince me otherwise). He stole a lot of bases in his career but he also got thrown out alot which is another reason I think it makes sense that he would be trying to steal 3rd in the first place as well as possibly getting caught. Also, when you look at the 3 photos stacked on top of each other you see that he has the same exact sliding form with his left hand extended way out in all of them. Sure it's all deductive reasoning, but so is the existence of Dinosaurs.

The reason why I think it's taken so long for this to be discovered is (1) His name isn't mentioned on the card and the picture isn't right in your face making it obvious, (2) this set is much more obscure and rare than others of the era, and (3) too many people just see cards as currency now and don't take enough time to closely study and enjoy them.

Here are all the pictures including the entire 1911 Cleveland team with just 2 players wearing a wrap on only their right ankle (and the other guy looks nothing like the guy with the pointy chin and big ears (Joseph Jefferson Jackson) sliding on the T202 card)... Look at all the evidence, it's gotta be him!

[Matt]

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

[brett]

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.

[Orioles1954]

Brett,

As someone who works in the industry I certainly buy #1 and 3, but not #2.

James

[brett]

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.

[Leon]

Brett- I know you are new to the forum, and this was a great first endeavor, but please keep your thoughts in this one thread and don't start anymore about the same subject. It starts clogging the board up.....as we already have the poll about the card also. Thanks for your understanding.....take care

[Matt]

nm

[Abravefan11]

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]

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.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by brett

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.

Based on the images that have been shown on this thread, and the running dialogue herein, I hardly think the conclusion that the T202 image looks "identical to Joe Jackson in the face" can be drawn.

I would love to believe that it is Shoeless Joe, but I am not convinced either way on it.

[botn]

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]

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.

[sportscardtheory]

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[botn]

BOTN if you think my posts on this thread were filled with hostility , then I'll just say you don't know me very well. I'm one of the most amiable collectors you'll ever meet more than likely. I wasn't trying to demean the original poster either.

You are right I do not know you. I was not the only one, nor was I the first, to interpret your posts as being bitter.

Had anyone tried to sell one of the T202's that flew off Ebay or off of Internet store fronts yesterday as a Jackson T202, we would all be talking about that now for sure. For those of you who don't like me knocking the investors/speculators and card flippers. you can just skip over my posts then. I won't stop talking about what I've seen the hobby degenerate into since the early 90's. It's just this type of person who would read a post such as this an then try to take advantage of unknowing buyers by trying to sell them a Jackson T202 for a massive premium. If you think it wouldn't happen you are naive. Check Ebay out any day of the week and you'll see some of the most ridiculous claims and listings. Each week there's new ones that top the previous weeks hilarity.

I understand your point about opportunists but don't think what has been posted here is going to result in some innocent person being sold an example of this card as if it depicts Jackson. Going to take a lot more than a seller’s claim to change the minds of collectors on an issue as well established as a T202. It is not as if this is unique cabinet.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[T206DK]

Originally Posted by botn

You are right I do not know you. I was not the only one, nor was I the first, to interpret your posts as being bitter.



I understand your point about opportunists but don't think what has been posted here is going to result in some innocent person being sold an example of this card as if it depicts Jackson. Going to take a lot more than a seller’s claim to change the minds of collectors on an issue as well established as a T202. It is not as if this is unique cabinet.

actually, I can see this happening. I can see some unscrupulous dealer using the info gleaned from this post to further his point to try to convince a buyer. It may never happen, but it's very possible.

In looking at the close up photos and the extraneous pics the Brett has found. I think the player sliding actually looks a bit older than Jackson looks in some of the other shots where you can see his face. I've been trying to find some pictures of him wearing a leg wrap from his time in New Orleans, but haven't had any luck yet. A collector friend of mine who lives in New Orleans is going to ask around also. the resolution of the sliding players face is too poor and the brim of his cap covers to much of the upper part for me to say it's Jackson at all. Some facial features look the same, but they could be contorted because the guy is sliding hard into a base during a game.

[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?

[T206DK]

I don't know about any injuries Jackson may have had until about 1914, but I have also wondered if the wrap or sock he wears was to protect his leg against being hit by pitchers or from foul balls. here is an interesting link from SABR on Shoeless Joe http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?...=1715&pid=6843

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by 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?

My thoughts exactly. I would actually think that Mark would love threads like this because it gives him an opportunity to educate and also a new subject for research. I do believe that Brett is jumping the gun here...there's probably enough evidence for a Texas district attorney that this is Jackson, but like I said before, absent an identifying photo from the photographer this will not be conclusive.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

Dan:
I would actually think that Mark would love threads like this because it gives him an opportunity to educate and also a new subject for research

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

Yeah - OK

[orator1]

Here are close-ups of the four players wearing the white ankle wrap on the right ankle, compared to the player in question. A higher resolution scan of the card is needed for a better comparison. Then maybe players can be ruled out based on facial features.
Is there any significance that the first and fourth players appear to have caps where the "C" is faded and slightly off center? The 2nd and 3rd players appear to have darker caps with a whiter "C" that appears to be more centered, like the hat of the player in question.

Paul C.

[T206DK]

hmmmm the blow up compared to the 4 pictures of the players looks kind like the first player.....even the ears kind of look similar. the resolution is not that good though

[square5000]

I don't mean to be a killjoy in this really fascinating thread, especially with a post from a newbie, but could the sliding player be Bill Bradley?
I believe his last year with Cleveland was 1910, and Lord was with the Chisox during the last half of 1910. Couldn't the photo be from 1910 instead of 1911?
Plus, he has prominent ears and a thin face similar to the sliding player (and a similar appearance to Jackson.) But, I have no explanation for the ankle wrap

If it's Joe Jackson, that would be really awesome and a great find. As others have stated, we'll never know for sure until the original photo is found.
Again, this is a great thread!


Note: Photos from a thread on baseball-fever.com

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by square5000

I don't mean to be a killjoy in this really fascinating thread, especially with a post from a newbie, but could the sliding player be Bill Bradley?
I believe his last year with Cleveland was 1910, and Lord was with the Chisox during the last half of 1910. Couldn't the photo be from 1910 instead of 1911?
Plus, he has prominent ears and a thin face similar to the sliding player (and a similar appearance to Jackson.) But, I have no explanation for the ankle wrap

If it's Joe Jackson, that would be really awesome and a great find. As others have stated, we'll never know for sure until the original photo is found.
Again, this is a great thread!


Note: Photos from a thread on baseball-fever.com

I believe it's been determined that Lord joined Chicago late in the 1910 season, and only played 3-4 games against Cleveland, and all the games were in Chicago. Based on this, the photo must be from 1911.

Steve

[bmarlowe1]

originally posted by brett:
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.


--------------------
Why not make a high res scan and post it?

Dan & Barry - it should be clear why I don't like this thread. If I'm arrogant, at least I have a track record of being right about some things sometimes. This guy doesn't have a clue and nothing anyone says is going to help. He still doesn't know what he doesn't know, and kindly reasoning will not change anything. If he wants to comprehend reality, he should try to get a copy of this card placed in JJ's file at HoF.