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

[barrysloate]

Mark- I would like to see Brett a little more open-minded to other opinions. Let's see where this thread is at by post # 300.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Mark- I would like to see Brett a little more open-minded to other opinions. Let's see where this thread is at by post # 300.

Short of finding information on the original photo I think the debate will be just as contested at post #300 as it is now. There just isn't anything definitive to say it's Jackson and everything that has been put forward to this point, no matter how compelling, has just been speculation.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Short of finding information on the original photo I think the debate will be just as contested at post #300 as it is now. There just isn't anything definitive to say it's Jackson and everything that has been put forward to this point, no matter how compelling, has just been speculation.

At this point it's circumstantial evidence with no smoking gun, but it is fun.

[Abravefan11]

Dan I agree completely. Even a road that leads to a dead end can be a fun ride.

[brett]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Mark- I would like to see Brett a little more open-minded to other opinions. Let's see where this thread is at by post # 300.

Barry I have nothing but respect for you and everybody else on here. I respect everybody's right to an opinion (sort of like religion). If somebody believes the player on that card is Oscar Gamble I'm cool with it if it makes them happy. I just firmly believe that I'm right on this one and that we've discovered something special together. Not wishful thinking on my part, just combining my knowledge with other people's observations and it all seems to add up beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Ladder7]

PM Sent to brett!

[barrysloate]

Thanks Brett. I do understand that you feel virtually certain you are right, but not everyone is on board yet. Let's see how this goes.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by brett

and it all seems to add up beyond a reasonable doubt.

I assume you're not a prosecuting attorney by trade?

[brett]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

I assume you're not a prosecuting attorney by trade?

Actually I'm a sports agent, but good guess on your part based off that last post.

[brett]

Here's ANOTHER thing to consider... an earlier poster showed closeup face pics of the 4 guys on the 1911 Naps team who wore ankle wraps on their right foot. Aside from the "C" on two of the guys' hats being faded (and I'm sure these guys didn't have access to numerous hats in a season like today's ballplayers), look at how Joe's sideburns are cut sharply at the top of his ears just like the guy in the sliding picture. GODDAMNIT IT'S GOTTA BE HIM!!!

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by brett

Here's ANOTHER thing to consider... an earlier poster showed closeup face pics of the 4 guys on the 1911 Naps team who wore ankle wraps on their right foot. Aside from the "C" on two of the guys' hats being faded (and I'm sure these guys didn't have access to numerous hats in a season like today's ballplayers), look at how Joe's sideburns are cut sharply at the top of his ears just like the guy in the sliding picture. GODDAMNIT IT'S GOTTA BE HIM!!!

It looks to me like it can only be the middle-right guy or SJJ. They are the only ones with "sunken" cheek-bones and Joe's go higher, like in the card. Plus as someone mentioned, Joe's C is more prominent on his cap.

[Matt]

Brett - you're overboard on the foot wrap thing. To assume just because months later only 4 people are wearing foot wraps, why does that have any bearing on the game in question? Was it worn for style? To heal an ankle injury? Either way, knowing how superstituous baseball players are, maybe a guy in slump decided to wear one for a few games or whatever.
That is why for photo ID you look at unique facial features like the ears and the spacing of features on the face, as Mark has explained many times - those won't change 4 months later.

[brett]

Originally Posted by Matt

Brett - you're overboard on the foot wrap thing. To assume just because months later only 4 people are wearing foot wraps, why does that have any bearing on the game in question? Was it worn for style? To heal an ankle injury? Either way, knowing how superstituous baseball players are, maybe a guy in slump decided to wear one for a few games or whatever.
That is why for photo ID you look at unique facial features like the ears and the spacing of features on the face, as Mark has explained many times - those won't change 4 months later.

That's why first and foremost I always said that the facial resemblance is the main reason I believe it's him. All these other factors are just the icing on the cake. Look at the cheekbones, ears, lips, chin, etc... The picture is not that small and not that grainy where you can't get a good enough look and see that it's him. The ankle wrap is just all the more reason. If I had to bet all the money I have on whether it's him or not I'd bet that it is and I'd like my chances of winning.

[orator1]

Mark, based on the 4 close-ups of 1911 Naps players in post #219, can any of their facial features exclude them from being the player in question?

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by orator1

Mark, based on the 4 close-ups of 1911 Naps players in post #219, can any of their facial features exclude them from being the player in question?

Paul - they way I would like to put it is that I can't be sure who it is or isn't based on what has been posted and also the reproduction in Slocum's book.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

I assume you're not a prosecuting attorney by trade?

Hey! I already made that joke.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Hey! I already made that joke.

Great minds think alike!