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

Leon · #1 05-26-2010, 10:09 AM

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 · #2 05-26-2010, 10:37 AM

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 · #3 05-26-2010, 10:46 AM

Two things are abundantly clear here:

It's Jackson (GREAT detective work).

The original poster is far from gracious.

Greg

brett · #4 05-26-2010, 11:10 AM

Quote:

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 · #5 05-26-2010, 11:14 AM

Quote:

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.

brett · #6 05-26-2010, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim VB

You may well be right about the card.

You are 100% dead wrong about your attitude.

That's fine. At this point all I want is for people to realize that we just discovered a new Joe Jackson card together. I've been pretty sure about it for a while and I recently decided to share it with everybody here. If I were doing it for selfish reasons I would have scooped up the 3 that I saw on ebay first.

brett · #7 05-26-2010, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim VB

You may well be right about the card.

You are 100% dead wrong about your attitude.

Besides, anybody who has a picture of Lajoie (my all-time favorite player) on their avatar is a friend of mine.

thekingofclout · #8 05-26-2010, 01:24 PM

Hey Brett. That has been a very long 15 minutes, but I think your time is about up.

Certainly enjoyed it though.

Jimmy

slidekellyslide · #9 05-26-2010, 11:18 AM

Quote:

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??

carrigansghost · #10 05-26-2010, 11:21 AM

Call the teacher over, the kids are fighting at recess again. This is one of the best posts of the, as yet, short year.

Rawn

Robextend · #11 05-26-2010, 11:20 AM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · #12 05-26-2010, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robextend

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?

Correct. Anybody who accepts the fact that it's Joe Jackson is smarter than someone who doesn't because it's now known to be true. In regards to the arrogance, I already tried to do it the other way and it didn't work. If people don't respect my findings and don't respect the work of SEVERAL others on this board who busted their asses to uncover the truth then they're the arrogant ones and I'll show them no respect in return.

bmarlowe1 · #13 05-26-2010, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brett

Correct. Anybody who accepts the fact that it's Joe Jackson is smarter than someone who doesn't because it's now known to be true. In regards to the arrogance, I already tried to do it the other way and it didn't work. If people don't respect my findings .

Your findings? - you found nothing. Greg found the newspaper photo that provides the only real evidence.

As to your contribution, it pales in comparison to the identifications made in the past by many of the posters who have not agreed with your approach and the certitude of your unsupported initial conclusion.

You see, what you have done here does not take any particular skill or insight. A blurry image that resembles a particular player to almost everyone is probably that player - we all know that. But that won't be and shouldn't be accepted as fact without further evidence, which you did not nor did you know how to provide.

brett · #14 05-26-2010, 10:50 AM

Quote:

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 · #15 05-26-2010, 10:54 AM

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

Rawn

brett · #16 05-26-2010, 11:13 AM

Quote:

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 · #17 05-26-2010, 11:19 AM

Quote:

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 · #18 05-26-2010, 11:22 AM

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 · #19 05-26-2010, 11:27 AM

Quote:

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 · #20 05-26-2010, 11:30 AM

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.

Jim VB · #21 05-26-2010, 11:39 AM

Can we require all "newer" board members to state their occupation and current geographic location?

We can't keep blaming everything on New York lawyers, can we? And Land Surveyors from Hawaii just doesn't sound mean enough!

brett · #22 05-26-2010, 01:04 PM

Quote:

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 · #23 05-26-2010, 01:36 PM

Quote:

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.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1940 Play Ball JOE DiMAGGIO Signed Card PSA/DNA	joedawolf	1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T	3	12-15-2009 09:30 AM
Shoeless Joe Jackson signed, or did Joe's wife sign for him?	tcrowntom	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	0	06-07-2009 10:30 AM
CAN SOMEONE HELP?---EBay: A seller has a 1915 Cracker Jack Ty Cobb & Shoeless Joe $4500+	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	44	11-16-2005 11:48 AM
A couple of nice Shoeless Joe Jackson PSA cards for sale!!!!!!	Archive	Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T	2	04-29-2005 03:12 PM
Shoeless Joe	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	7	02-04-2005 10:52 PM