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

[teetwoohsix]

I guess there is a rule that it has to be proven that it is JJ, and not the other way around. I didn't know about that, I thought more people would be able to explain why they didn't feel it was him. I think Andrew is the only one who gave a reason why he felt it wasn't JJ.

To me, I can see why Brett thinks this is Jackson, and from looking at all of the photos, comparing the slide, the uniform, the hat, the leg wrap, the facial features (what we can see from them)........I am becoming convinced (almost ).

I understand whats coming next--it's all speculation without proof--I know guys. But can you all agree that you see what Brett is seeing? I can.

Clayton

[Tcards-Please]

Clayton,

It may be difficult to PROVE, but based on the information that has been posted before (facial features, sliding style, hat, etc) I think it may be him as well. We have other people come on here and give their professional opinions on other cards from over 100 years old based deductive reasoning and common sense. No absolute proof at all and we take their word based on area of expertise and opinion.

r/
Frank

[T206DK]

there is a slim chance that the player sliding in the picture has the same cheekbones structure and chin as Jackson does when relaxed. Look at the lines that run from his nose down the sides of his face to his chin. Jackson also had a sunken area under one of his eyes that to me makes it impossible for that face on the card to be him. Even if he was gritting his teeth while bearing down on the bag his face would not look as aged and old as it does in the T202 pic. The ears do not match up either, at least not the way I see them, so I don't know why that is still being argued. The player that is sliding is not Jackson, but is someone who could have looked similar in uniform and was older than he was ( my opinion). The white "sock" or wrap may have been a support for an injury, but I was also told last night that it could have been worn by the team captains or used in that manner. Can you see his left leg through the dirt....I can't tell, but it doen't really look like all dirt there. I think you can see some of his left leg and shin perhaps. Every player slides almost the same if they are going in feet first anyway, so for Brett to say that it is a "Jackson" slide is not right either. I slide that way playing softball , and I'm sure a lot of other guys know what I'm talking about. you put your target leg out, tuck your other leg under and trail one hand behind you. It's the way sliding is taught to 6 year olds. I think the fact that some on this board now want it to be Jackson so bad that they are not willing to "see" anything different.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Jax hit .408 in 1911. If this is a 1912 issue, and the pic was Jax, wouldn't he likely have been identified as other middle photos of stars were identified?

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Jax hit .408 in 1911. If this is a 1912 issue, and the pic was Jax, wouldn't he likely have been identified as other middle photos of stars were identified?

The card wasn't about him though, it was about Lord getting his man.

[botn]

Here is link to a an enormous high resolution scan of the Cleveland player.

www.botn.com/images/LordCatches.jpg

[botn]

The Cleveland Public Library's Microfilm Department has been kind enough to save me a trip. They have provided me with coverage from all 11 games in which the White Sox played in Cleveland. I am reading the articles in chronological order. The headlines for the 2nd game they played (printed in the July 6, 1911 paper) reads "Yes, Joe Jackson Was Surely Out At 3rd Base", the image in the newspaper is at a later point in the slide but it made headlines. Here is a link to a larger version of the scan. www.botn.com/images/CPD050611.jpg

[T206DK]

Originally Posted by botn

Here is link to a an enormous high resolution scan of the Cleveland player.

www.botn.com/images/LordCatches.jpg

this scan allows me to see a greater difference now in the nose of one of the Jackson face pics and the sliding player. The noses look very different to me now that I see this blow up. also the left side of the face doesn't seem to match Jackson features. Once again though, the player is probably cringing or gritting his teeth so his face is contorted.

[brett]

Originally Posted by T206DK

there is a slim chance that the player sliding in the picture has the same cheekbones structure and chin as Jackson does when relaxed. Look at the lines that run from his nose down the sides of his face to his chin. Jackson also had a sunken area under one of his eyes that to me makes it impossible for that face on the card to be him. Even if he was gritting his teeth while bearing down on the bag his face would not look as aged and old as it does in the T202 pic. The ears do not match up either, at least not the way I see them, so I don't know why that is still being argued. The player that is sliding is not Jackson, but is someone who could have looked similar in uniform and was older than he was ( my opinion).

Yeah you're right, in the picture below from the same year Joe doesn't have any lines running from his nose to his chin and he looks EXTREMELY young for his age (and of course the ears don't match up either). Neither does the hair, chin or anything else. Nah, that's not Joe Jackson.

[T206DK]

Originally Posted by brett

Yeah you're right, in the picture below from the same year Joe doesn't have any lines running from his nose to his chin and he looks EXTREMELY young for his age (and of course the ears don't match up either). Neither does the hair, chin or anything else. Nah, that's not Joe Jackson.

you can be a smartass about it if you want, but your image comparison doesn't prove anything Brett. I still say the player sliding is much older than Jackson" looked" at that time. How you base your judgement on just partial bits of evidence is amazingly peculiar for someone who doesn't really care if it's Joe Jackson or not. If this was a court case you'd have lost by now. Your expert's opinion is just that ...an opinion from a self described Joe Jackson expert who knows nothing about facial recognition or photo idenitification. based on the same photos we've all been looking at. How closely has he examined other photos of players on the team that looked simialr in uniform to one another ? He hasn't most likely
this card. the sad thing is, whether you like it or not you've now convinced a certain amount of people that it is Jackson on the card, and who knows where this will go after that.
It's not Joe Jackson just because Mike Nola and you think it is...sorry. It's going to take some definitive evidence which you may never find in order to be able to make that statement to anyone but your collecting buddies.

[brett]

Originally Posted by T206DK

you can be a smartass about it if you want, but your image comparison doesn't prove anything Brett.

Actually, it proves a lot. You said that he didn't have "smile" lines on his face and didn't really look as old as the player on the T202 card, so I attached a picture from that same year that clearly proves you wrong on both accounts. Sorry to all the doubters, but it's definitely Joe Jackson and I'm not backing down. You can believe whatever you'd like, but the poll proved that 2 to 1 people here believe that it IS him and the top Joe Jackson expert out there (who has no stakes in this whatsoever) verified it when another poster here emailed him... That's good enough for me.

[deadballera]

Great research and info from all contributors

What a thread !!!

[barrysloate]

Well I don't think the poll proves anything, it's just a poll.

There's quite a bit of evidence here and my opinion is it is probably Joe Jackson, and I commend Brett on this find. I do, however, wish that Brett took it down a notch. No need to be in everyone's face about it. It takes away some of the lustre from what is otherwise a great piece of detective work.

And I don't believe we have definitive evidence that's it's Jackson, I'm just saying I do feel it's him.

[ChiefBenderForever]

Originally Posted by T206DK

the sad thing is, whether you like it or not you've now convinced a certain amount of people that it is Jackson on the card, and who knows where this will go after that.
It's not Joe Jackson just because Mike Nola and you think it is...sorry. It's going to take some definitive evidence which you may never find in order to be able to make that statement to anyone but your collecting buddies.

I don't see how it sucks at all or why you are so worried about this card carrying a premium because we now know it is a 90% chance or better it is Jackson. Sometimes the mystery or unknown is more exciting than absolute proof. It's things like this that keep the hobby exciting, as much as I find new varitations, errors, and the like interesting, this is much more enticing, and I don't think the value would shoot through the roof at all if 100% proven it's him, maybe 5X at the most.

[brett]

delete

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by brett

Yeah you're right, in the picture below from the same year Joe doesn't have any lines running from his nose to his chin and he looks EXTREMELY young for his age (and of course the ears don't match up either). Neither does the hair, chin or anything else. Nah, that's not Joe Jackson.

These comparison photos end the debate for me. Along with all the other subtle evidence, the long, very noticeable wrinkle on the left side of his face is now a dead-giveaway. This is Shoeless Joe Jackson.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

I guess there is a rule that it has to be proven that it is JJ, and not the other way around. I didn't know about that, I thought more people would be able to explain why they didn't feel it was him. I think Andrew is the only one who gave a reason why he felt it wasn't JJ.

To me, I can see why Brett thinks this is Jackson, and from looking at all of the photos, comparing the slide, the uniform, the hat, the leg wrap, the facial features (what we can see from them)........I am becoming convinced (almost ).

I understand whats coming next--it's all speculation without proof--I know guys. But can you all agree that you see what Brett is seeing? I can.

Clayton

I think we all have said we see what Brett is seeing. If we didn't we wouldn't be saying it could be JJ; we would be saying we don't think there is any chance it is him.

As to why it might not be him, the answer is simple. There is simply not enough detail to rule out other players who bear similar enough resemblance. In regard to ankle wraps, method of sliding, etc., again how can we know there aren't other players that wear ankle wraps or have similar sliding methods? Since all these players are on the same team, how do we know they don't have a trainer who encourages use of ankle wraps, or a coach who instructs his players to use a certain method of sliding? As Mark said, and I agree, no one who does photo ID in a serious way could at this point conclude beyond a reasonable doubt it must be Joe Jackson.