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

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Rockenfeld is the only New Orleans player of the Southern Association in this 350-only group of SL subjects.
Why wasn't Joe Jax selected ? He was the most popular ballplayer in that League in 1910.....and, is credited
with New Orleans winning the pennant.

Rockenfield played for Montgomery in 1909. As you know the 14 additional SL players were added in the 350 series first released in the spring of 1910. This all happened before Joe began play in New Orleans.

Originally Posted by tedzan

Furthermore, the final T206 press run (460 series) occurred in the Spring of 1911....tell me why Joe Jax wasn't
depicted in this series with a Cleveland uniform ?

No new SL players were added after the 14 mentioned above and I don't think at the time the final 460 series was going into production Joe had done enough in Cleveland to warrant ATC including him as a professional.

Originally Posted by tedzan

I'll tell you why....for whatever reasons, ATC snubbed him (as they did in all their subsequent sets).
TED Z

Had Joe not been included in the T210 set I would agree he was snubbed.

[Matt]

Tim- - I agree with you that T207 is the only question, though Matty, Cobb, Young and Lajoie are missing there as well.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by Matt

Tim- - I agree with you that T207 is the only question, though Matty, Cobb, Young and Lajoie are missing there as well.

Matt after more consideration I'm not as surprised given what you said. I think whatever kept so many other HOF players out of the T207 set kept out Joe as well.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Matt after more consideration I'm not as surprised given what you said. I think whatever kept so many other HOF players out of the T207 set kept out Joe as well.

I think those players were just too artful to put into such a drab offering. I bet seeing what the artist did with WaJo, they decideed to have mercy on the other superstars of the day.

[tedzan]

OK, we have eliminated several of the aforementioned sets. But, that leaves us these remaining sets to consider.

1915 E106............................same images from E90-1, therefore no excuse for no Joe Jax
1916 T216 KOTTON................same images from E90-1, therefore no excuse for no Joe Jax
1916 T216 MINO....................same images from E90-1, therefore no excuse for no Joe Jax
1916 T216 VIRGINIA EXTRA.....same images from E90-1, therefore no excuse for no Joe Jax
1916 Fleischmann

Since Joe Jackson is featured in the T210 Old Mill set (Series 8), and American Litho. repeated many of their T210
images in the T206, T209, T211 (Red Sun), and T213-1 (Coupon) sets.....but, not Joe's image.
Why is this so ?

That being said, there appears to be no rational reason for not continuing to print Joe in the following sets, given
his tremendous performance during these years........

1912 T202
1912 T215-1
1913 T215-2
1914 T213-2
1915 T214
1919 T213-3


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Considering the T202 end panels are the same images as the T205 set and Joe wasn't in that set, isn't that a rational explanation for why he wasn't included?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by tedzan

OK, we have eliminated several of the aforementioned sets. But, that leaves us these remaining sets to consider.

1915 E106............................same images from E90-1, therefore no excuse for no Joe Jax
1916 T216 KOTTON................same images from E90-1, therefore no excuse for no Joe Jax
1916 T216 MINO....................same images from E90-1, therefore no excuse for no Joe Jax
1916 T216 VIRGINIA EXTRA.....same images from E90-1, therefore no excuse for no Joe Jax
1916 Fleischmann




TED Z

Imagine if that awful pic from E90-1 was reproduced in all these other sets. Ugh.

[tedzan]

DITTO

It's a good thing they left him out.....

But, at the same time, the kids back then loved Joe and they deserved to have BB cards of him.
American Caramel should have updated their picture of Joe and printed him.





TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Since Joe Jackson is featured in the T210 Old Mill set (Series 8), and American Litho. repeated many of their T210
images in the T206, T209, T211 (Red Sun), and T213-1 (Coupon) sets.....but, not Joe's image.
Why is this so ?

American Litho did not repeat the T210 images in the other sets. The other sets repeated the T206 images including T210. All of the sets that utilized the T206 images will not include Joe Jackson.

These two cards illustrate that T206 images were shared with T210. Perry Lipe was with Richmond in 1909 and Macon in 1910.

Originally Posted by tedzan

That being said, there appears to be no rational reason for not continuing to print Joe in the following sets, given
his tremendous performance during these years........

1912 T202
1912 T215-1
1913 T215-2
1914 T213-2
1915 T214
1919 T213-3


TED Z

1912 T202 – Same images as T205 so no Joe
1912 T215-1 – Shared images with T206 so no Joe
1913 T215-2 – Shared images with T206 so no Joe
1914 T213-2 – Shared images with T206 so no Joe
1915 T214 – Shared images with T206 so no Joe
1919 T213-3 – Shared images with the T206 so no Joe

I'm looking at the other sets and will let you know if I find anything.

[jmk59]

I agree that it was not necessarily a snub in the sense that ATC simply shut him out altogether. It may have been something on JJ's part. It may have been somewhat mutual. It may have been a decision that arose at a particualr point in time or between two particular people (explaining his presence in some sets but not others).

But I do think that it was definitely an intentional choice by somebody, and not just an accident of literacy or lack of an old photo handily on file. So I'm not sure that any of the conjecture around which different sets used common images is a basis for a reason - if both sides wanted him to be in, they would definitely have arranged for something as simple as an image.

Great topic though. I don't have any of the detailed knowledge of this set and that printer, etc, that you guys have. But I'm enjoying considering the issue from a pure (read: lack of specific expertise) knowledge standpoint.

J

[tedzan]

Great T3......it is indeed Shoeless Joe......thanks for posting it.


TED Z

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Great T3......it is indeed Shoeless Joe......thanks for posting it.


TED Z

No ankle wrap....

[jmk59]

I am going to ring in even though I know absolutely nothing about this (and am about to display it).

I think Ted is on the right track overall in that the exclusion seems intentional, with the mystery being which party didn't want him on some of the cards.

It seems clear that these cards - whether candy, tobacco or other - were big business and widely/commonly known at the time. Therefore, I have a hard time with any "accidental" omission on Joe's part - the illiteracy, missing mail, etc. He had to be extremely aware of the baseball card business, and if he wanted to be part of it he surely could have.

It also seems clear that he was a serious player - on the same level as other players of the time who are represented in multiple sets during his peak years - and not an obscurity. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to me that the card companies would allow the lack of an "on hand" photo to keep him off the cards. I can see omission from the very early caramel sets - when he wasn't quite as big. But anything after 1910 or so seems like he should be there. If he was a premier player, the card companies (or ATC) could have and clearly would have gotten an image from somewhere.

So for these reasons, I mentally set aside any accidental or incidental omission of oversight or inconvenience or whatever. That leaves intentional exclusion. The question, maybe, isn't "why isn't he on the cards?" A more pointed question might be "which party (Jax or ATC) decided that he would not appear on cards?"

This leads to all kinds of interesting related questions. Why? Did the other party make significant efforts to change the mind of whoever decided he would not be in these sets? Did they even know why? Did anyone try to mediate (his team, other players, etc)? Not that these related questions may ever be known, but they are interesting to just wonder about and try to imagine.

Very interesting question, but I think Ted is on the right track when he talks about a snub. Not that a snub is the exact right answer, but it is in the arena of someone (Jax or ATC) deciding to leave him off major issues of the time. I honestly don't think that the lack of images or literacy or whatever was in play. These cards were a big deal. If both parties wanted it to happen, it would have happened.

Joann