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

[Abravefan11]

From an English teachers pet peeve list. This is #1.

et al.: Number one pet peeve: Indicating “and others” in citations. If you cite one author in body text, it should be “AuthorOne”. Two authors: “AuthorOne and AuthorTwo”. Three or more authors: “AuthorOne et al.” (although, for three authors, I understand “AuthorOne, AuthorTwo, and AuthorThree” is OK). “et al.” stands for “et alia”. It does NOT have a period after “et” and DOES have one after “al”.

[barrysloate]

Thanks Tim. But my #1 pet peeve is the misuse of "its" and "it's." Board members get it wrong at least half the time.

[Jim VB]

Mine is "your" and "you're," with "their," "they're," and "there," a close second.


There always being mixed up!

Your welcome!

[barrysloate]

Apostrophes seem to cause problems. There are rules, but you have to know and apply them.

[tbob]

Adverbs, adverbs, adverbs. I use to sit in front of the TV and bark out the proper adverb when the commentator used the wrong word.
Don't they teach adverbs in school anymore?
"Its" and "it's" run a close second.
Coming in third is the one many 54 posters have trouble with: it's "if I were" not "if I was."

[Jim VB]

Great. 555 posts in and we seemed to have derailed this thread, for good.

[tbob]

Sorry I couldn't resist.

[brett]

Originally Posted by tbob

Sorry I couldn't resist.

I gotta hand it to you man... THAT'S funny!

[CW]

Originally Posted by Matt

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.

Originally Posted by Matt

Brett - your off base here - the standard convention for cataloging T202s is based on the end panels and the title of the center panel. Consider the Lajoie I posted about above. He is even mentioned in the text on the back, but that card is not cataloged as Lajoie (cataloged, as are all T202s, by the title, this one is "A Great Batsman"), and is not part of any "Lajoie master set." It's just a T202 that has Lajoie in the center panel with another player; same here. In fact that one has much better credentials then this one for what you are suggesting - the back uses his name and the text on the back focuses on the batter (as opposed to the one in question which focuses on the 3B).

To suggest this card "features" Joe Jax assumes the manufactures intended him to be the centerpiece. Bob's verbiage is much more apt - he is a cameo on this card - the printers of this card wouldn't have cared if Joe Jax or any other player was being thrown out at 3rd.

This has been a fascinating thread, and it has been interesting to watch
it unfold, from Brett's initial discovery, to Greg's excellent detective work
in locating the comparison image, to the overall acceptance by the skeptics
here that it is indeed Shoeless Joe (count me as one initially).

I believe Matt's posts, two of which I quoted above, make some excellent
points as well. I feel that even if the hobby accepts Joe's inclusion on
the center panel as fact (which I believe will eventually happen), you will
not see a big increase in the value of this card. Sure, initially we will see
a spike in ending prices, but overall I don't really think anyone will be getting
rich off the new info about this card and its center panel. The card is starting
off as relatively inexpensive, limiting its "upside" for investors.

As others have said, though, I guess time will tell....

[old-baseball]

[obcmac]

Yeah Kevin...I asked the same question in a different thread. It seems like everybody is tired of talking about it. But I thought that one looked similar...and it has the sock too. I think there should be an honest effort to identify every player pictured in all center panels...not just say that one in Joe Jax, then tire of the conversation.

Mac

[brett]

HOLY CRAP I think you're right!!!! I initially overlooked this one and now that I just went back and looked at this card closer, it definitely appears to be the same player (Shoeless Joe) who's on the "Lord Catches His Man" card with identical facial features, expression, and the tell-tale white wrap on his right ankle only. Now that I just went through all 76 center panel photos in this set with a magnifying glass, these are the only 2 that I believe are Joe Jackson (with the other one already being proven). There are about a dozen or so Cleveland players total on the center panels and most of them can be dismissed because they either mention the specific player's name on the back, are pre-1911 photos in old uniforms from before Shoeless Joe got to Cleveland, or you get a good look at the player's face and can tell that it's clearly NOT Shoeless Joe, or you CAN'T see the player's face whatsoever to get any type of positive ID. You are correct my friend, it looks like you've found the second and last card in the set that can be identified as featuring a young Shoeless Joe Jackson!

[barrysloate]

Does this mean another 500 posts?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Greg, are you undertaking the research again?

[botn]

Well I would hate to annoy Barry and Ted so I will pass the torch.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by botn

Well I would hate to annoy Barry and Ted so I will pass the torch.

Just make a post in the "other" Joe Jackson thread and all will be well.

[brett]

Originally Posted by botn

Well I would hate to annoy Barry and Ted so I will pass the torch.

No way buddy... If you try to get out I'm pulling you right back in! I couldn't have done this without you on the first one, and now we need you more than ever.

[botn]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

Just make a post in the "other" Joe Jackson thread and all will be well.

Think it just takes me making a post anywhere, truth me told.

[Rich Klein]

I have now finally caught up after spending the last 20 minutes reading this thread from beginning to end

1) For the most part on a thread this long, we have stayed within the bounds of cards. Congrats to all concerned

2) My personal instinct for the penny it is worth; is that Greg (Brett giving credit to others) did great detective work and the photo *IS* JJ. Having said that, I can see why skeptics are not sure and there is not 100 percent agreement.

3) A couple of points that have come up during this thread
A) The question was raised about how something could not be discovered for a long time. The answer is, sometimes we ALL miss things.
About six years now, I received an email about a word misspelled on the back of the Nolan Ryan rookie card. Now, that card has been sought after for years by many collectors and until a gentleman from Arkansas, IIRC pointed out the error with an email; that spelling error was unknown for nearly 40 years. When I was writing my errors and variations column for Beckett, I never got as much response to a column as I did to that one. I would receive maybe 5-10 emails per column; on the Ryan column I probably received 100 emails to which I had to explain that this was an error in 1968; it was never corrected and thus no extra value.
Thus it is entirely possible; although Lee mentioned some hobby circles had already discussed this; that this was a Joe Jackson photo in the middle of that card had never been fully realized.

B) Unlike Bob, we did mention at times when cameos were part of a card. I just checked the 1971 Chris Short listing and Beckett does mention in what was called the "continuation" line that Pete Rose is leading off second. And Beckett does have a slightly increased value for the 1971 card. I checked the prices of the 1970 and 72 Chris Short in Beckett and those cards are commons in that set.
That does not mean Beckett is still correct or that Bob is correct; in this case it was two different people making a decision as to whether the Pete Rose added value -- Bob said no; I said yes in those days.

4) We all need to keep an open mind

Regards
Rich

[brett]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

I have now finally caught up after spending the last 20 minutes reading this thread from beginning to end

1) For the most part on a thread this long, we have stayed within the bounds of cards. Congrats to all concerned

2) My personal instinct for the penny it is worth; is that Brett did great detective work and the photo *IS* JJ.

Thanks to everybody who's said this, but I can't take credit that I don't deserve. I simply "uncovered" that it was him by being observant and recognizing his face and other body features in the photo. The real "detective" work was done by Greg and others on this board who found old newspaper photos and more documenting this event and PROVING what I had strongly believed.

[brett]

Originally Posted by CW

This has been a fascinating thread, and it has been interesting to watch
it unfold, from Brett's initial discovery, to Greg's excellent detective work
in locating the comparison image, to the overall acceptance by the skeptics
here that it is indeed Shoeless Joe (count me as one initially).

I believe Matt's posts, two of which I quoted above, make some excellent
points as well. I feel that even if the hobby accepts Joe's inclusion on
the center panel as fact (which I believe will eventually happen), you will
not see a big increase in the value of this card. Sure, initially we will see
a spike in ending prices, but overall I don't really think anyone will be getting
rich off the new info about this card and its center panel. The card is starting
off as relatively inexpensive, limiting its "upside" for investors.

As others have said, though, I guess time will tell....

I agree with pretty much everything you said and the collectors will decide what it's worth. Some may feel this card is nothing special, while others believe it's the greatest discovery since sliced bread. Personaly I think it's somewhere in between. While it would be better if he had a side-panel card in this set or a T205 or T206, he doesn't, and so this is all we have of Shoeless Joe in the way of a T card (not to mention the scarcity and ridiculously high prices of his other cards) making me believe that this card will DEFINITELY go up in value and become much more desireable than the common it has been for the last 100 years.

[barrysloate]

If the center panel read "Jackson Out at Third" we would be talking about a very valuable baseball card.

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

Sounds like a photoshop job for Wonka.

[brett]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

If the center panel read "Jackson Out at Third" we would be talking about a very valuable baseball card.

True Barry, but if it said "Jackson Out at Third" we never would have had all this fun!

[brett]

Being as a lot of people were wondering what this discovery would do for the value of the card, the PSA 4 "Lord Carches His Man" card that I put on Ebay last week just sold for $450. I believe that once it becomes commonly known to everybody that this and the "Schaefer on First" card feature Shoeless Joe they'll permanently sell for around $500-$1,000 in EX condition.

[Ladder7]

$450, you done well!

[botn]

It will be interesting to see what this card does over time. PSA 4 commons are normally $80 cards so that is a huge premium, Brett. Not quite a Cobb premium but pretty close.

[brett]

Originally Posted by Ladder7

$450, you done well!

Thanks man. That's why I didn't want to sell it to you or anybody else beforehand because I didn't want to rip anybody off or short-change myself. By the way, I can't believe that my first ever post here ended up being the only one to go over 20,000 views.

[PolarBear]

I read this entire thread. It almost ended in a train wreck but turned out ok.

Good stuff and I bet this card gets recognized a Joe Jackson card by the hobby as a whole.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

I read this entire thread. It almost ended in a train wreck but turned out ok.

Good stuff and I bet this card gets recognized a Joe Jackson card by the hobby as a whole.

If you're up for it, Don, you should also read the threads that this one sparked, particularly a couple that were started solely because of how much attention this one received. (T-card envy, I think they call it.)

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

If you're up for it, Don, you should also read the threads that this one sparked, particularly a couple that were started solely because of how much attention this one received. (T-card envy, I think they call it.)

Any links? Thanks,

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

Any links? Thanks,

I found this one to be pretty entertaining, on oh-so-many levels:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=124210

[botn]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

I found this one to be pretty entertaining, on oh-so-many levels:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=124210

And we all learned how to play the Gotcha game too.

[botn]

I figured it was worth an effort to do some research on the other T202, Milan McBride Schaefer On First, which some suggest depicts a sliding Jackson. I figured it was even more of a long shot that I would come up with anything definitive as the image merely shows a Cleveland player being held at first--hardly something that makes the paper, right? I read through all the articles of the 11 games Washington played in Cleveland. Only 1 provided any information which loosely supports the possibility that Jackson is the player sliding on that T202. Below is a HUGE scan of that article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer from the game of May 21, 1911. Of the 11 games these two teams played in Cleveland this is the only one which has an image from the game. Is it possible that headlines from the Cleveland Plain Dealer influenced 2 center panel images? Will let you all draw your own conclusions. And if so, is it Jackson or Graney sliding?

http://botn.com/images/May 21 1911 Naps.jpg

[FrankWakefield]

Great research, and thanks for posting the scan link.

[Matt]

Greg - thanks for doing the research!

[chaddurbin]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

I found this one to be pretty entertaining, on oh-so-many levels:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=124210

wow, i missed this thread. some people just don't subscribe to the theory "simplest explanation is usually the correct one" (google call it occam's razor)...but i guess when you're right, you're right!

[nolemmings]

Interesting that Graney is also wearing the white half-sock from a game played in 1911. Also interesting that Graney made it to at least second base in the game from which your prior newspaper photo of JoeJax appeared. Did you say you had read the play by play from that game? If so, was Graney ever retired at 3B?

EDITED TO ADD: Never mind. I read the game story and Graney was not retired at 3B. In fact, no other runners were retired at 3B except for JoeJax on the smash to short.

[botn]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Interesting that Graney is also wearing the white half-sock from a game played in 1911. Also interesting that Graney made it to at least second base in the game from which your prior newspaper photo of JoeJax appeared. Did you say you had read the play by play from that game? If so, was Graney ever retired at 3B?

Hi Todd,

Thank you. In the other game against the White Sox, Graney went 1 for 3 with a walk. The play by play did not mention the at bat which resulted in a hit. It did cover the at bat in which Graney was walked. It states "Graney stole second on the same ball but hesitated about going to third and when he made a belated start he was headed off and retired, Payne, Lord to Zeider." This at bat was in the 3rd inning and the article states only two other players touched 2nd base in the game. One of them was Jackson in the put out at 3rd. Not sure of the other.

[nolemmings]

The other was Easterly, who hit a double play ball that forced Lajoie (who hit the ball that got JoeJax out) at second, but who advanced to second on a wild relay throw. Next guy up hit a comebacker, and was thrown out at first.

So, if the t202 photo came from this game, only one guy was out at third for Cleveland, and that was JoeJAx.

[packs]

Wasn't the famous Conlon photo of Cobb sliding into third taken in 1909? I remember reading it was 1909. So if it is, and that photo from 1909 appears in the center of the T202, who's to say that the photo on this T202 was taken from the year before? There is absolutely no way to determine and extremely little chance it is Joe Jax. You guys have limited it down to one single game in one year, but how do you know the photo was even taken in 1911? What would suggest it was? There are countless cards in countless sets from the time that reused old photos. Clearly this set has in some cases.

[nolemmings]

I believe it was determined that Harry Lord would not have played for Chicago until the last two months of 1910, and that the Indians did not host the White Sox during that two month stretch, such that the photo was from 1911.

[53Browns]

Now all these cards on Ebay have them tagged as "Shoeless Joe" cards. Streeeeeeeetch. Just saying.

[FUBAR]

and JOEJAX would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids! Jinkies!

[Misunderestimated]

I can't believe that I didn't read this thread sooner ... Actually I skimmed some of it so please excuse any redundancies ...
the facts that that there is no side panel of JJ in the set is not explained by the fact that the side panels are with 1 exception* were limited to cards in the T205 set (the portraits were apparently created for that set ) and JJ was not included in that set. The T205 set drawings in turn would not have included JJ since he was not in the majors in 1910.
The center photos don't always identify the people in the pictures they often focus on whomever the title references and talk about him. Here the title player was Harry Lord so his "victim" in the play was not identified. The same holds true of the Elberfeld center photo cards.
I think someone may have noted this before but many of the photos in the T202 set appear in other places and at least one (the most famous one) was taken by Charles Conlon so perhaps it is possible to figure out from somewhere else -- some photo book or archive -- who Lord was tagging.

One other thought -- it stands to reason that the photos in the set (there are 76 of them as I recall) were not taken at different games. So maybe the mystery can be solved (or at least further illuminated) by figuring out which games between the Cleveland and the Chisox were in other photos (if there are any) in the set....
Anyway over the weekend I'm going to look at my T202s and see if I can add anything to this project.





----
* Smokey Joe Wood whose debut was in 1911 was even more celebrated than JJs (among other reasons: he played for Boston not Cleveland)

[packs]

Harry Lord joined the White Sox on August 9th 1910 and appeared in 44 games for them that season, every game from 101 to 156. In all 44 games he played third base. Of these 44 games, the White Sox played Cleveland 4 times. According to Baseball-Reference, Lord played in each game.

There was a double header on September 5th.
Then a 2 game series was played over October 1st and 2nd.

This photo could be from any of those four games. Joe Jackson made his debut for Cleveland on July 30th and played in 20 games that year. Did he play in any of these four games? I don't know but you would have to if you were going to say Joe Jax was caught at third in 1910 as well.

[nolemmings]

The four 1910 White Sox-Indians games you cite were all played in Chicago. The photo depicted on the T202 card shows the Cleveland player in a home uniform, meaning the game was played there. Harry Lord did not play for the White Sox in Cleveland in 1910--see my last post. Hence, the game depicted on the card took place in 1911, as again, Harry Lord was not a Chicago third baseman IN CLEVELAND until that year.

[packs]

You're right. The plot thickens.

[brett]

Originally Posted by Misunderestimated

I think someone may have noted this before but many of the photos in the T202 set appear in other places and at least one (the most famous one) was taken by Charles Conlon so perhaps it is possible to figure out from somewhere else -- some photo book or archive -- who Lord was tagging.

It's already been figured out and documented earlier in this post from a 1911 Cleveland newspaper picture. Look back through this thread and you'll see it.

[Rob L]

Wow. I lurk every couple of months to see what has been happening. This thread is wild. I tried to clean up the article photo a bit with Lightroom and photoshop to see if there was any other detail. The major wrinkle in the right sleeve is visible in both photos. It looks like the interpretation that the sun was high is correct and the newspaper photo does seem to show Lord's shadow cast over the foot and the knee. There may be evidence of the white wrap just passed Lord's leg while the rest is covered in shadow.

Just another interpretation. Fascinating thread!!