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

[ChiefBenderForever]

Originally Posted by T206DK

Yeah, Sportscard theory I trash everyone who has anything positive to say. I guess I will go the route of ChicagoT206 then since I have nothing to ad to your Joe Jackson fantasy. damn right I'm angry at my brother. We are polar opposites as far as collecting goes. He is in it for the money , I'm not, and never have been and ahave been pretty diehard about it since the night I saw the local card shop owner open case after case of Topps finest just to get the refractor cards so he could sell them at super inflated prices. You think one kid in town had a chance to buy a pack of those cards from him...NO! him and his greedy employees opened ever pack they could get there hands on. See there are these dealers and speculators out there that tend to make things up about cards in order to jack the value up. threads like this only serve to give them the ammo they need. We have provided them photos and documentation that their lazy asses would never had discovered. frankenstein is born , so to speak. what's positive about that. the only positive thing that happened here is someone named Brett found a card that has a picture of a guy sliding that resembles Shoeless Joe Jackson. It sparked a bunch of us to go to research to prove or disprove Brett's discovery. After 300+ posts Brett thinks he is right and cannot be swayed. He has a certain number of followers in his corner now too that will only see what they want to in these pictures that are posted. There are an equal number who think it's either inconcluisive and foolish to speculate or think it's not Jackson period. So that's about the sum of it for me.
oh, before you talk about not adding anything to the conversation....some of your posts exemplify it ! Why don't you just sit back and read instead of lobbing your insulting and inconsequential remarks at me. Your not going to change my mind , and I highly doubt your going to get a gang of Net54'ers to chase me off the board because you don't seem to like what I say sometimes.

Are you mad because Jackson is on this card or because you and your brother have more copies than anyone else ?

[T206DK]

Originally Posted by JohnnyHarmonica

Are you mad because Jackson is on this card or because you and your brother have more copies than anyone else ?

why would I be mad that Jackson is on the card ? Contrary to your assumption, I would be glad. that would mean I have 2 more Jackson cards in my collection, and an interesting story as to how this was discovered, to be able to tell others. I'm not angry that my brother was advantageous and went and bought more of this card after I mentioned this to him. If he makes a lot of money off of them selling them that's up to him isn't it. I've shared my views with him many times on investing/speculating vs. collecting . He's not a member of this board , never has been, so the board members that contacted him sought him out. I gave noone his contact info. Johhnyharmonica what's your deal ? I don't get your angle at all here, or are you just being sarcastic ? some of you need to learn how to take criticism a little better. I could have come right out and agreed with the poster of this thread simply based on the picture he initilly showed. I didn't, so deal with it. the more evidence that is found that is compelling the more I will be convinced. that's how most people I know would approach something like this. they wouldn't just look at a few pics and say...." I now think it is definitely Jackson on the card". So now I am singled out as the roustabout, the troublemaker, the negative guy . whatever ! I never attacked the poster of this thread or made any comments defaming him or impuning his posts. I do apologize for my first bit of sarcasm , but I think I already did that 200 posts ago.

are you sure you aren't the one who is mad or jealous ? I don't get some of you guys on this board sometimes. Very petty and very high schoolish for people that are grown men, or at least purport to be.

[Leon]

Not that it matters a lot but put me in the camp of "it's probably him but not ready to call it definitive". I do think it's him from all evidence shown but I am just not ready to call it Jackson yet. Personally, I think it needs to be definitive for me to concede it being him. If I had to attribute my percentage of thinking it's him, I would go 75%.....I also don't think the value should sway a lot if it IS him....maybe 2x - 3x......it's not a good pic of him and he isn't mentioned....That's my half cent, without sarcasm.

[Jacklitsch]

I know that this is not going to be politically correct but some of you guys remind me of the "birthers".

Here we have a 1911 newspaper article that shows Jackson out at third with a headline proclaiming same. While the picture in the newspaper is very grainy there appears to be enough evidence (at least to me) that the two subject photos were taken within seconds of each and both depict the event as appears in the headline.

[sayhey24]

Two things are abundantly clear here:

It's Jackson (GREAT detective work).

The original poster is far from gracious.

Greg

[brett]

Originally Posted by sayhey24

Two things are abundantly clear here:

It's Jackson (GREAT detective work).

The original poster is far from gracious.

Greg

Thanks Greg, but what should I be gracious about? I brought something huge to this board and instead of appreciation I got a bunch of pseudo-experts on high-horses doubting me and just trying to be contrarians. You admitted that you agree with me and you're smarter for it. I'm the type of person who will quickly apologize or admit whenever I'm wrong, but I usually won't take such a strong and arrogant stance unless I KNOW I'm right. This is one of those instances. Thanks for at least being one of the people on this board who have logic and common sense.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by brett

I'm the type of person who will quickly apologize or admit whenever I'm wrong, but I usually won't take such a strong and arrogant stance unless I KNOW I'm right.

You may well be right about the card.

You are 100% dead wrong about your attitude.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by brett

Thanks Greg, but what should I be gracious about? I brought something huge to this board and instead of appreciation I got a bunch of pseudo-experts on high-horses doubting me and just trying to be contrarians. You admitted that you agree with me and you're smarter for it. I'm the type of person who will quickly apologize or admit whenever I'm wrong, but I usually won't take such a strong and arrogant stance unless I KNOW I'm right. This is one of those instances. Thanks for at least being one of the people on this board who have logic and common sense.

Marshall Barkman the Fourth??

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by brett

You admitted that you agree with me and you're smarter for it. I'm the type of person who will quickly apologize or admit whenever I'm wrong, but I usually won't take such a strong and arrogant stance unless I KNOW I'm right. This is one of those instances. Thanks for at least being one of the people on this board who have logic and common sense.

So everyone that agrees with you is smarter then they were a couple days ago? Also why does being right = having to be arrogant about it?

You contributed to the board with a great thread; some people think you are 100% right, others think you are strongly on to something. Why can't you leave it at that? Each post you have recently made has been more absurd then the last.

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Thanks Rob. I was insulted by the Holocaust analogy too. Not appropriate.

No prob. I don't understand why that would have to be brought up in a vintage card forum to prove a point.

[brett]

Originally Posted by Leon

Not that it matters a lot but put me in the camp of "it's probably him but not ready to call it definitive". I do think it's him from all evidence shown but I am just not ready to call it Jackson yet. Personally, I think it needs to be definitive for me to concede it being him.

Leon, it's as definitive as it's going to get brother. Glad I was able to contribute something worthy to your board. Sorry to everybody else for coming accross like an asshole lately, but I knew I was right when I first posted this. Thanks to the help of other people on here it's now as evident as evident can be. 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.

[carrigansghost]

Welcome to the board and I look forward to your next thought provoking thread.

Rawn

[brett]

Originally Posted by carrigansghost

Welcome to the board and I look forward to your next thought provoking thread.

Rawn

Thanks buddy but I have nowhere to go but down from here.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by brett

Leon, it's as definitive as it's going to get brother. Glad I was able to contribute something worthy to your board. Sorry to everybody else for coming accross like an asshole lately, but I knew I was right when I first posted this. Thanks to the help of other people on here it's now as evident as evident can be. 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.

Brett,

I'm not sure why as this thread has progessed you see the need to go to arrogant and condescending.

A significant number of board members have opined that in their view it very possibly might be Jackson, in fact likely is him, but there exists a reasonable possibility it is not. In fact, this view arguably reflects the stated consensus of this board. I hope that view is not a "no" by your way of looking of things, because if so I think it's a bit disrespectful to characterize so many board member as "blind, stubborn or in denial." In regard to your phrases "it's as definitive as it's going to get"/it's now as evident as evident can be", clearly it is not. I think most of us would feel that finding this same image in a newspaper archive with a period annotation entitled "Jackson out at third" would make the ID significantly more definitive.

[barrysloate]

I think this thread has gone about as far as it can, and at this point it is beginning to regress. Hopefully this discussion will end soon. What more can any of us say?

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I think this thread has gone about as far as it can, and at this point it is beginning to regress. Hopefully this discussion will end soon. What more can any of us?

Well, he hasn't threatened to sue himself... yet.


We still have that to look forward to!


(Brett, that's not a shot at you, but is poking fun at another board member who did exactly that.)

[sportscardtheory]

That anyone can still say there is doubt is astonishing. The Joe Jackson-specific wrinkle on the left side of his face and the completely identical pant-line fold on Lord in the newspaper photo make this a done deal, and that's not even bringing up all the circumstantial evidence. Anyone who still isn't certain this is Jackson is in some sort of denial.

[brett]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Brett,

I'm not sure why as this thread has progessed you see the need to go to arrogant and condescending.

I think most of us would feel that finding this same image in a newspaper archive with a period annotation entitled "Jackson out at third" would make the ID significantly more definitive.

Have you not been following this post? The article you're suggesting is right here... http://www.botn.com/images/CPD050611.jpg

That's why this ID is more than definitive.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by brett

Have you not been following this post? The article you're suggesting is right here... http://www.botn.com/images/CPD050611.jpg

That's why this ID is more than definitive.

I think it was crystal clear to everybody except perhaps you that the image I was referring to was the IDENTICAL image to that on the T202 middle panel. Greg's research, while terrific, generated a DIFFERENT image.

[ChiefBenderForever]

Originally Posted by T206DK

why would I be mad that Jackson is on the card ? Contrary to your assumption, I would be glad. that would mean I have 2 more Jackson cards in my collection, and an interesting story as to how this was discovered, to be able to tell others. I'm not angry that my brother was advantageous and went and bought more of this card after I mentioned this to him. If he makes a lot of money off of them selling them that's up to him isn't it. I've shared my views with him many times on investing/speculating vs. collecting . He's not a member of this board , never has been, so the board members that contacted him sought him out. I gave noone his contact info. Johhnyharmonica what's your deal ? I don't get your angle at all here, or are you just being sarcastic ? some of you need to learn how to take criticism a little better. I could have come right out and agreed with the poster of this thread simply based on the picture he initilly showed. I didn't, so deal with it. the more evidence that is found that is compelling the more I will be convinced. that's how most people I know would approach something like this. they wouldn't just look at a few pics and say...." I now think it is definitely Jackson on the card". So now I am singled out as the roustabout, the troublemaker, the negative guy . whatever ! I never attacked the poster of this thread or made any comments defaming him or impuning his posts. I do apologize for my first bit of sarcasm , but I think I already did that 200 posts ago.

are you sure you aren't the one who is mad or jealous ? I don't get some of you guys on this board sometimes. Very petty and very high schoolish for people that are grown men, or at least purport to be.

I just asked you a question, and apologize if that was petty. I wish I was in high school !

[T206DK]

Originally Posted by JohnnyHarmonica

I just asked you a question, and apologize if that was petty. I wish I was in high school !

sorry if I came across as harsh Johnny. I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread and all the evidence that has been discovered to support both sides fo the issue. I apologize to you if my tone seemed out of sorts.
This has been more interesting than the Ty Cobb back discussions in my opinion. I think if anything, this thread will get collectors to take a closer look at all their cards from now on. I have several T202s and to be honest, I look at the side panels more than the pictures in the middle most of the time.

[rhettyeakley]

Interesting thread, it is likely Joe after all but I retain the right to change my opinion if more evidence is found.

That being said, what people like Brett and Sportscardtheory (I have no idea who that is) have to understand is that while this one ended up being likely correct (I'm still not 100% convinced) for every one that is correctly id'ed there are 20-30 that are totally bogus. You guys were convinced that it was Joe prior to any of the evidence Greg put forth (which is the ONLY thing in my mind that leads me to believe it might me him) so your bias was obvious from the start. Prior to the newspaper photo evrything that had been put forth as "evidence" was essentially opinion based on a blurry image that had just as good of a chance as being Terry Turner or Joe Birmingham (as opposed to Jackson).

When one is truly impartial they have to be convinced by the evidence, not the other way around--this is why Mark is so valuable to this board and the hobby. I think he is right on in his stance, he never once said "that ISN'T Joe Jackson" he was simply stating that he didn't feel comfortable saying it "was 100% Joe Jackson" because there is that small chance that it isn't (which still exists). Photo ID is an absolute...it's either him or it's not, if you say it's "likely" him then that just isn't enough for some people (got it!).

The fact that both of you have been so beligerent about the whole thing really leaves a sour taste in the mouth (at least to me). We got it 350 posts ago that you were convinced it was him (even before the newspaper photo Greg found was found) but to ridicule or be "arrogant" about this kind of stuff is petty and childish. I have been doubted by many in the past about things in this hobby that turned out to be right, but a mature person doesn't feel the need to do the whole "I told you so" thing!

The way Mark approaches photo id is the "standard of care" (to use a medical term). Jumping to conclusions about an id from a photo is done all the time and 99% are wrong. Take your praise as having possibly added a card to the JoeJax master checklist like an adult, no need for anymore jabs, shots or holocaust references (see Godwin's Law).

-Rhett

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Interesting thread, it is likely Joe after all but I retain the right to change my opinion if more evidence is found.

That being said, what people like Brett and Sportscardtheory (I have no idea who that is) have to understand is that while this one ended up being likely correct (I'm still not 100% convinced) for every one that is correctly id'ed there are 20-30 that are totally bogus. You guys were convinced that it was Joe prior to any of the evidence Greg put forth (which is the ONLY thing in my mind that leads me to believe it might me him) so your bias was obvious from the start. Prior to the newspaper photo evrything that had been put forth as "evidence" was essentially opinion based on a blurry image that had just as good of a chance as being Terry Turner or Joe Birmingham (as opposed to Jackson).

When one is truly impartial they have to be convinced by the evidence, not the other way around--this is why Mark is so valuable to this board and the hobby. I think he is right on in his stance, he never once said "that ISN'T Joe Jackson" he was simply stating that he didn't feel comfortable saying it "was 100% Joe Jackson" because there is that small chance that it isn't (which still exists). Photo ID is an absolute...it's either him or it's not, if you say it's "likely" him then that just isn't enough for some people (got it!).

The fact that both of you have been so beligerent about the whole thing really leaves a sour taste in the mouth (at least to me). We got it 350 posts ago that you were convinced it was him (even before the newspaper photo Greg found was found) but to ridicule or be "arrogant" about this kind of stuff is petty and childish. I have been doubted by many in the past about things in this hobby that turned out to be right, but a mature person doesn't feel the need to do the whole "I told you so" thing!

The way Mark approaches photo id is the "standard of care" (to use a medical term). Jumping to conclusions about an id from a photo is done all the time and 99% are wrong. Take your praise as having possibly added a card to the JoeJax master checklist like an adult, no need for anymore jabs, shots or holocaust references (see Godwin's Law).

-Rhett

Why are you calling me belligerent when I haven't been? And why are you saying I had my mind made up from the beginning when I didn't?

[Anthony S.]

Well put, Rhett.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Rhett takes over the lead for best post of the thread.

[rhettyeakley]

"That anyone can still say there is doubt is astonishing.

This has absolutely nothing to do with law. Majority rules in these situations.

I'm sorry that you can't understand it, it's about burden of proof. Everyone has done an exceptional job proving that it is Jackson, while some people are wasting everyone's time saying that they...

The thing I don't like about this, is that "Mark" isn't saying anything at all. He's saying he doesn't know, which is the same thing as saying nothing. The only evidence he can possibly use to...

That's a cop-out. It HAS to be someone, and if you say it's not Joe Jackson, then who is it? IT HAS TO BE SOMEONE.

Nope. It's your lack of comprehension that sucks. I was only asking who you think the player is, and apparently you don't have an answer. Many have shown that it certainly could be him, (and the...

Why are you so angry? lol Light some candles...take a bubble bath...listen to whale songs.

Him carrying-on about UFOs and chiding everyone simply because they are curious is SOOO substantive."



All statements by you in this thread and essentially a case-study in belligerency (is that a word?)

[ChiefBenderForever]

Originally Posted by T206DK

sorry if I came across as harsh Johnny. I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread and all the evidence that has been discovered to support both sides fo the issue. I apologize to you if my tone seemed out of sorts.
This has been more interesting than the Ty Cobb back discussions in my opinion. I think if anything, this thread will get collectors to take a closer look at all their cards from now on. I have several T202s and to be honest, I look at the side panels more than the pictures in the middle most of the time.

No worries Dave, I'm still laughing about the ufo, bigfoot, and Jack the Ripper comments that was pretty funny. I think this whole observation has been amazing but the excitement is already wearing off a little, but definately a great find in a set seldomly talked about.