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

[Matt]

Originally Posted by 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.

Peter and the T200? Meanwhile even if we call the WGs oddball issues, they identify him by name and picture solely him. Even if confirmed, the player depicted in the center panel is not the main driver of value on T202s; rather it's the named side-panel players. I agree with Barry on a 2x premium vs. a common T202.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Do all the T202s with the center panel of Cobb have Cobb on an end panel?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Do all the T202s with the center panel of Cobb have Cobb on an end panel?

No - there is an Austin/Stovall with a Cobb mid-panel. He is identified on the back of the panel though as the card is titled "Ty Cobb Steals Third." Even so, I don't think that one sells for nearly what the ones with him on the end-panel do, despite it having the iconic Cobb center panel image. A closer parallel would be the "A Great Batsman" card which has Lajoie in the center, but not on the sides. According to the SCD that one carries no premium over a common even though Lajoie is IDed by name on the back.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Re the shortstop issue, I think Tannehill, who threw Jax out, may well have been playing second as was previously suggested, and that despite also being listed at second, Zeider may have been at shortstop and not involved in the play. Zeider played various infield positions that season according to Baseball Reference and, tellingly, in the account of the game he made a high throw to first for an error. Much more likely an error by a shortstop. So that objection may indeed be disposed with.

EDIT Also more likely Jax would have tried to advance on a grounder to the right side.

[barrysloate]

Bob- I'm shocked you are already getting inquiries on this. When did Brett start this thread, a couple of days ago?