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

[dstudeba]

Originally Posted by botn

Again it is troubling the white wrap or sock is not seen in the newspaper image.

If you look at the third baseman's left leg it is dark also so maybe it is shadowing.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by dstudeba

If you look at the third baseman's left leg it is dark also so maybe it is shadowing.

Good point. That would explain the darkness on Jackson's shin/foot area.

[Exhibitman]

I'm convinced it is most likely Jackson; let the gold rush begin!

I'd still rather have a T200 Cleveland to have a Jackson card.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I'd still rather have a T200 Cleveland to have a Jackson card.

Yeah - I think some folks think that if this is confirmed as Jackson it's going to make the T202 super valuable - let's remember that the ceiling for the value on the T202 probably shouldn't be more then the T200 that shows his face and identifies him by name. That one only sells for a 2-3x premium over a common.

[barrysloate]

If the perception is it is Jackson, the price of the card will soar. This hobby always has been, and still is, about hype.

[Matt]

Barry - aside from the point above I mentioned about the T200, you could get his WG5 or WG6 for $500-$1000 - why would this card, where you can't see his face and he's not mentioned at all carry more value then either the T200 or his WG5/6? I suppose there might be a very short term surge, but 6 months from now why would anyone prefer the T202 middle panel to the other two I mentioned? IMO at ost this should carry a 2x premium over a common T202.

[barrysloate]

A few reasons: it's brand new, so there will be this rush to get it; and it's a tobacco card, and that's worth something. I say it will sell for more than twice a common, perhaps 3-5x. Just a guess.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The WGs are playing cards and are oddball issues. The T202 is by contrast a relatively major mainstream set. A T202 Jax would be huge.

[Bob Lemke]

I received a PM asking when or even whether this card would be listed in the Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards as picturing Joe Jackson.

I'm sure others have the same question, so I'll respond here.

As theoretically should be the case with every other card in the catalog, the listing of T202 (94) Lord Catches His Man in future edition will reflect how the hobby market perceives (values) the card over a period of time.

If the card's price spikes for a few weeks or months, nothing will change in the catalog. If however, demand builds and remains at a premium, the card's catalog value will reflect that.

As I noted earlier, the listing for card (4A) in the 1913 National Game listing reads (and the corresponding Tom Barker set should, as well), "(Some collectors believe the player in the picture is Ty Cobb and are willing to pay a premium for this card.") That card is listed at $75 in NM, while the other action cards in the set are pegged at $15.

Conversely, we do not note "cameo" appaearances, nor is there additional book value, on other cards such as 1971T #511 Chris Short, with Pete Rose in the background.

I expect to see a flurry of activity for the T202, but whether increased market values will be sustained is an open question. I suspect that for this card to achieve lasting status and premium value, it will be necessary for PSA and/or SGC to recogize the guest appearance of Joe Jackson on their slabs.

In any event, the Standard Catalog will not be able to make any changes on this card until the 2012 edition.

[orator1]

Disregarding the baserunner's identity, is there anyone who believes that these two photos were NOT taken split seconds apart on the same play?
Given the similarities, what evidence is there that these are not the same play?

Paul C.

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I'd still rather have a T200 Cleveland to have a Jackson card.

I would rather have the T200 as well.

Originally Posted by brett

If somebody is still saying "no" right now they're either blind, stubborn, or in denial (possibly all of the above) in which case their credibility has just gone right down the crapper.

I don't think anyone is saying "no", but not everyone is saying 100% "yes". With that said, I do think it is probably him and thanks for a great thread.