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

[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.

[brett]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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.

Barry, I think the snobbery of some of the veterans of this board has taken away the lustre from what is an amazing discovery that I just happened to make. I was very diplomatic a couple days ago, but once certain people who think they're holier than thou start talking crap like "unless Joe Jackson's mother can verify it"... I'd also love to hear their thoughts on the Kennedy Assasination.

Instead of trying to show how smart they are they should just look at the pictures, weight the evidence, and call it what it obviously is.

[calvindog]

Gosh, lots of sarcasm on this thread. It really does take away from my ability to enjoy Brett's discovery and Greg's crackerjack detective work.

My amateur opinion is that it is Jackson. After all, it looks like him and does not resemble anyone else on the team. I don't think it's even a close call here.

[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.