Shoeless Joe Jax DIVERSION, why isn't he in any 1911-1917 major T or E-card sets ?

[tedzan]

Hey guys, thanks for your inputs. I forgot that the 1914 & 1915 CJ's were classified as E-cards.

Anyhow, I'm really interested in your thoughts (theories) why Joe Jax is missing in the major
T-card sets and the majority of all the other E-card sets ?


TED Z

[brett]

I may have somewhat explained it in an answer I gave in the other thread regarding the question of why his name wasn't mentioned on the T202 card.

Originally Posted by Abravefan11
"I've tried to remain impartial throughout this thread but I must admit after closely comparing the newspaper photo with the T202 image I'm on the "It's Joe" team now.

With that said I'm perplexed by the fact that they would use an image of Joe and not mention him on the card. Other players that aren't included on the end panels are mentioned in the description of center panel images."

Here was my response...
Yeah, and I can assure you that they were all compensated and signed off on the usage of their names on those cards. Maybe they were simply never able to get Joe to sign off for whatever reason or he just didn't want to be a part of it. Laws back then were much different than they are today and it's quite possible that Hassan had MLB's permission to use any of their player's images as part of the set without having to get the individual player's permission as long as they didn't use his name. I'm a sports agent and there are similar rules today as it related to trading cards. Some companies who don't have MLB's license can use players images and names BUT NO TEAM LOGOS as long as they have a license with the Players Association (like Upper Deck now). On the other hand, card companies have made cards where they didn't specify players names because they didn't have a group licensing agreement (GLA) with the Player's Union, but they could in fact show team logos because they bought the rights from the League. Look at Topps football cards from the mid 70's to around 1981 and you'll see that all the helmet and team logos are airbrushed out (no license from the League). Look at Fleer football cards from the same era and you'll see all the players in team logos, but no specific mention of those players' names (no license from the Players Association). As it turned out, the fans cared more about the players names and statistics and Fleer was put out of the football business for many years. At that point, Topps then got the NFL's rights to use team logos as well. Hope this possibly clears that up.

ALSO, all the players pictured on end panels of the T202 set were from the same exact pictures used in the T205 Gold Border set. Players like Lajoie and Crawford who for whatever reason never granted their permission the be included in the T205 set (but obviously agreed to be included in the T202 set) could only be featured on center panels being as no end-panel artwork existed. Maybe Shoeless Joe never agreed for his name to be used on either. There were several other sets from that era that he didn't appear in as well. In 1915 when he was considered the top player in the game why did he grant Cracker Jack permission to make a card of him, but not American Caramel? I'm sure American Caramel would have liked to include him as they made cards of all the other stars of the day. Looks like Joe wasn't very easy to pin down and maybe he was just way ahead of his time when it came to guarding his intellectual properties.

[T206DK]

It could be that Joe's illiteracy kept him out of any deals with advertisers other than the ones we know of. If he received requests or contracts and never read them or responded to them I assume the companies just skipped him or felt he wasn't interested. Afterall, they were trying to sell candy or a tobacco and not cards of particular players. the feeling may have been that enough "stars" of the day were represented in their tobacco or candy inserts to attract buyers without the likes of Joe Jackson picture.
Does anyone know if Jackson was ever used to sell furniture or shoes by local stores in Cleveland....just curious.

[glchen]

I wonder why Joe wouldn't agree to this. I thought one of the reasons for the Black
Sox were that players were chronically underpaid by the team owners, so they
were looking for extra cash. So if these companies offered some dollars for their
permission, why wouldn't he jump at it? Maybe he was a very private person, but I
have seen him in posed photos from that era.

[FrankWakefield]

1913 T200s, the little ones and big 'uns for the Cleveland team.

[T206DK]

1909-11 E90-1 American Caramel Co.
1911 M101-2 Sporting News Supplements (03.23.11)
1910 T210-8 Old Mill Cigarettes
1911 T5 Pinkerton Cabinet
1911-15 Baseball Stars Notebooks
1912 E270 Colgan's Chips Tin-Tops
H813 Boston Garter
1913 T200 Fatima Team Cards (Cleveland-AL)
1913 T200 Fatima Team Premiums (Cleveland-AL)
1913 WG5 National Game Card Game
1913 WG6 Tom Barker Card Game
1914 B18 Egyptienne Straights Cigarettes Blankets (Purple Pennant)
1914 B18 Egyptienne Straights Cigarettes Blankets (Yellow Pennant)
1914 #103 E145-1 Rueckheim Bros. & Eckstein Cracker Jacks
1914 E224-1 Texas Tommy
1914 PC-UNC E&S Publishing Post Card
1914 WG4 Polo Grounds Card Game
1915 #103 E145-2 Rueckheim Bros. & Eckstein Cracker Jacks
1916 BF2 Ferguson Bakery Felt Pennants
1916 #86 D350 Standard Biscuit
1916 #87 M101-4 Altoona Tribune
1916 #87 M101-4 Burgess-Nash Clothiers

1916 #87 M101-4 Everybody's
1916 #87 M101-4 Gimbels
1916 #87 M101-4 Globe Clothing Store
1916 #87 M101-4 Green-Joyce Clothiers
1916 #87 M101-4 Herpolsheimer Co.
1916 #87 M101-4 Indianapolis Brewing Co.
1916 #87 M101-4 Morehouse Baking Co.
1916 #87 M101-4 Sporting News
1916 #87 M101-4 Ware's
1916 #87 M101-4 Weil Baking Co.
1916 #86 M101-5 Block and Kuhl Co.
1916 #86 M101-5 Famous and Barr Clothiers
1916 #86 M101-5 Gimbels
1916 #86 M101-5 Holmes to Homes
1916 #86 M101-5 Sporting News
1916 #86 M101-5 Successful Farming
1917 #82 H801-8 Boston Store
1917 #82 E135 Collins-McCarthy
1917 #82 E135 Standard Biscuit
1917 #82 D328 Weil Baking Co.
1917 #87 D329 Weil Baking Co.
1917 M-UNC Davis Printing (Team Issue)
1920-21 #15 W514 Strip Card
1940 R335 Gum, Inc. Play Ball
1946-49 W603 Sports Exchange

the above list are cards that feature Joe Jackson.

[tedzan]

Dave

That's a quite formidable list; but, the majority of those sets are regionals. Besides the 2 Cracker Jack issues, Joe Jax
is not featured individually in any major Candy or Tobacco sets during his great years with Cleveland and Chicago (1911
to 1920).

I don't know about you, but this mystery sure sparks my curiosity ?

I have some thoughts regarding why....but, first I'd rather hear Net54er's opinions. I think this is a discussion long over-
due. It's certainly more significant than the guesswork as to whether it's Joe Jax in a T202 centerfold photo (in order to
hype up the $$ value of that card).

Thanks for postig the list.

TED Z

[Bridwell]

Hi Ted,
I have a newspaper ad dated 1911 with Jackson endorsing Brown's Hats. So he probably was not against endorsements during that time. It's possible that the tobacco company authorizations were mailed to the homes of players. This was done in 1908-09 and then the same auths were probably re-used for future sets by ATC.

Jackson didn't spend much time 'reading' his mail, and the auths may have gone out at a difficult time in his career when he was moving around and getting established. Later he appears in Cracker Jack, Texas Tommy and B-18 Blankets around 1914.

Ron R

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ted given that most of the major E sets (I think) are 1911 or earlier, and his first real full season was not until 1911, how many major sets issued after he was a well-established player is he really not in, at the end of the day? Maybe we should list those and compare to other players' gaps?

[tedzan]

Peter S

Shoeless Joe played for the New Orleans Pelicans in 1910, batting .354 to lead the Southern Association. In
mid-Sept of 1910, Joe reported to Cleveland and played in 20 games, batting .387....in 1911, he batted .408
in 147 games....in 1912 he batted .395 in 154 games.

Therefore, I'm reprising your words in a question to you. Was he at this point "a well-established player" ?

Peter
CHECK THIS OUT....I have listed 17 pertinent sets that defy all normal reason, as they didn't include Joe Jax.

The following 4 sets include Cobb, Lajoie, Speaker, Wagner.....but no Jackson.

1911 E94
1911 Sporting Life (M116)
1915 E106
1916 Fleischmann

The following Tobacco sets include Cobb, Lajoie, Speaker.....but no Jackson.

1911 T205
1911 T206
1912 T202
1912 T207
1912 T215-1
1913 T215-2

Furthermore, the following Tobacco cards were marketed in the New Orleans area

1910 T213-1 (includes 20 Southern Leaguers in that region)
1914 T213-2
1919 T213-3
1915 T214
1916 T216 MINO, KOTTON, VIRGINIA EXTRA......(these 3 sets include Wagner)


This mystery further deepens !

And, I'm still waiting for some one here (anyone) to provide us a reasonable explanation why Shoeless Joe
is not in any of these sets.....when his peers are in all these sets ?


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Just some quick thoughts. Joe was almost inactive in the major leagues when the artwork for the T206 was produced. By the time he was in the majors and becoming a star T206 was coming to an end.

Does this help with other issue like T213, T214, and T215 that used T206 artwork as well?

T205's were produced before Joe was in the majors and not having a card in this set should explain his not being included in T202 as they share images as well. I still can't explain why his name wouldn't be included on the description of the center panel photo.

[tedzan]

Furthermore, to add more "ammo" to this mystery....Dave's (T206DK) lengthy list (post #13) certainly indicates
that Joe Jax allowed many less prominent BB card company's to print his image.

So, why did Joe Jax not appear in the more prominent BB card company's sets, as I've listed in the above post ?

Really, I don't understand why this subject is not eliciting more of a conversation here ? ?


TED Z

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ted, it's an excellent question. Do you know, on a related matter, why Walter Johnson isn't in so many of the "E" sets?

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Really, I don't understand why this subject is not eliciting more of a conversation here ? ?


TED Z

Thank you for trying, Ted.