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

[brett]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

I've had excellent correspondence with Mike Nola* several times and he is an expert on JJ. He helped me un-authenticate an item Heritage had mis-labeled (that was based on an erased date). I don't know specifically what his skills are in facial ID. I don't doubt that he feels certain about this image.

In my view, though your scan is a bit better - there still isn't nearly enough their for certainty. If I was advising an author looking for a JJ sliding photo for his book, I would tell him to find another. If the card was in a Library of Congress collection labeled as Lord and Tannehill, I would tell them to leave it that way. If an authenticator asked me if he should authenticate the image as JJ - I would say not.

If you study the subject, you will see an inherent bias against certainty that 2 faces are the same person when you really can't see one of them very well. That's because the mind has a tendency to fill in what you can't see - and not always correctly.

This is a lot more blurry than any image I have ever seen anyone try to seriously identify. I can point to a couple of barely discernable features that seem to be very similar to JJ, and as has been said, it can be JJ. That's where I would leave it unless the photo is found.

Enough already... It's Joe. You now have newspaper documentation and on top of everything else here's the word from somenbody who knows alot more about Joe Jackson than you or even me...
Hi Greg,

Thanks for your interest in Joe and for your comments about the card.

We showed the photo to our boss and Official Historian, Mike Nola and
he said there is no doubt in his mind, the photo is that of Joe
Jackson sliding into third. The hair style, the ears, the laugh
wrinkle (crease) on the left side of his face, the build....all give
it away.....it's Joe Jackson...end of debate!!! Mr Nola took the
photo into Photoshop and enhanced it as much as possible, he has no
doubts....it's Joe Jackson. If we were to dig into our archives, we
could probably tell you with some certainty the day the photo was
taken, but right now, we don't have that kind of time to research this
issue further.

Please do let us know if we can assist further in this matter.

Now you can admit that I'm right and let it go. I knew this when I started the post. The evidence is overwhelming and it's nice to know that I just made a valuable contribution to this board and the hobby.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by brett

Enough already... It's Joe. You now have newspaper documentation and on top of everything else here's the word from somenbody who knows alot more about Joe Jackson than you or even me...

Newspaper photo - no white rap - explain it.

While Mike may know a lot more about JJ than I do, that does not mean he knows more about identifying people in photos than I do. Unless he is JJ's mother, it's just another opinion on a blurry image.

[brett]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

While Mike may know a lot more about JJ than I do, that does not mean he knows more about identifying people in photos than I do. Unless he is JJ's mother, it's just another opinion on a blurry image.

Obviously I don't think JJ's mother is around to help us, so the next best thing we have is the foremost Joe Jackson expert on the planet who's dedicated his life to studying all things about the man. When he says, "The hair style, the ears, the laugh wrinkle (crease) on the left side of his face, the build....all give it away.....it's Joe Jackson...end of debate!!!" I'll take that to the bank even though you're not willing to give me your blessings.

[drdduet]

Can't we use that software from Avatar to clean up the image, zoom in, and positively id who this "unidentified Cleveland player" is?

[rdixon1208]

While I think it is a strong possibility that it is him, I've found myself asking this question:

Would I pay a premium for this card as a Joe Jackson card based on what I know now?

The answer is no. Not yet anyway.

[orator1]

I'm not an attorney, but I've read that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is typically quantified as being 95% certain. Given the weight of ALL the evidence combined, I am comfortable that it is JJ beyond a reasonable doubt.

[slidekellyslide]

Just a few random thoughts so far.....

-The sliding player's left leg is obviously underneath his other leg...I'm not sure what Andrew is seeing, but that is a cloud of dust, not a leg.

-Brett is being very arrogant about this, but the fact remains that absent the original photo it's still not 100%.

-Some guy (dabbuu??) used his first ever post after having been registered for over a year now to add absolutely nothing to this thread. Somebody's sock-puppet?

-the wrap on Jackson's ankle that is not in the Newspaper photo could have been painted out of the photo....I've seen many cases of inane "painting" by early photographers to change the photo.

-I actually think this IS Joe Jackson.

[tbob]

Originally Posted by orator1

I'm not an attorney, but I've read that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is typically quantified as being 95% certain. Given the weight of ALL the evidence combined, I am comfortable that it is JJ beyond a reasonable doubt.

Well, actually there are no percentages and although the judge always instructs the criminal jury what "reasonable doubt" is, juries often struggle with the concept. It is extremely subjective despite the definitions. The standard is much higher in a criminal case than in a civil case in which the standard is "by a preponderance of the evidence," for example, but the area is very gray.

[botn]

Mark,

Thank you for your analysis and opinion on the image.

Greg

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by botn

Mark,

Thank you for your analysis and opinion on the image.

Greg

You are welcome Greg, anytime. Sorry about the previous mis-understanding, to which I contributed.

Mark

[botn]

No worries, Mark. Sorry for jumping down your throat. Much nicer when we all work together even if there are differences of opinions.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Not so fast, Brett. Mark is an expert in this area, and what he is saying should be given very strong consideration. There is a psychological aspect to this, as he points out. To paraphrase Paul Simon, a man sees what he wants to see. I think there is a very good chance it is Jackson, but it has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt, to my mind. The face is grainy and fuzzy, we can't see the eyes, and we can't see the hair.

Also, a little modesty would be in order.

[ChiefBenderForever]

Great research and info from everybody ! Still a few holes in the bucket that just won't hold the water but a great adventure so far !

[brett]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not so fast, Brett. Mark is an expert in this area, and what he is saying should be given very strong consideration. There is a psychological aspect to this, as he points out. To paraphrase Paul Simon, a man sees what he wants to see. I think there is a very good chance it is Jackson, but it has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt, to my mind. The face is grainy and fuzzy, we can't see the eyes, and we can't see the hair.

Also, a little modesty would be in order.

That's the problem with "experts"... they're never willing to admit when they're wrong. I didn't "want" to see anything and wouldn't give a rat's ass if it weren't Joe. If anything, for whatever reason your expert is still trying to stick to his guns and convince people that it may not be when it is. Sorry about my cockiness, but modesty went out he window when I was all but proven right about 150 posts ago. When the top Joe Jackson expert on the planet just enhanced the card and said he has "NO DOUBT" that it's Joe then that's good enough for me. By the way, I already own other Joe Jackson cards and my life would still be complete if I didn't own another... But it just so turns out that I do!

[ChiefBenderForever]

Originally Posted by brett

That's the problem with "experts"... they're never willing to admit when they're wrong. I didn't "want" to see anything and wouldn't give a rat's ass if it weren't Joe. If anything, for whatever reason your expert is till trying to stick to his guns and convince people that it may not be. Sorry about my cockiness, but modesty went out he window when I was all but proven right about 150 posts ago. I already own other Joe Jackson cards and my life would still be complete if I didn't own another... But it just so turns out that I do!

You have to be 100% for them to admit you are right, even if you are 99% sure it stills leaves a 1% chance you are wrong.

[dabbuu]

Originally Posted by brett

Enough already... It's Joe. You now have newspaper documentation and on top of everything else here's the word from somenbody who knows alot more about Joe Jackson than you or even me...
Hi Greg,

Thanks for your interest in Joe and for your comments about the card.

We showed the photo to our boss and Official Historian, Mike Nola and
he said there is no doubt in his mind, the photo is that of Joe
Jackson sliding into third. The hair style, the ears, the laugh
wrinkle (crease) on the left side of his face, the build....all give
it away.....it's Joe Jackson...end of debate!!! Mr Nola took the
photo into Photoshop and enhanced it as much as possible, he has no
doubts....it's Joe Jackson. If we were to dig into our archives, we
could probably tell you with some certainty the day the photo was
taken, but right now, we don't have that kind of time to research this
issue further.

Please do let us know if we can assist further in this matter.

Now you can admit that I'm right and let it go. I knew this when I started the post. The evidence is overwhelming and it's nice to know that I just made a valuable contribution to this board and the hobby.

Don't bother arguing with this guy anymore it's a waste of your time, everyone knows it's Joe.