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

[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.

[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 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.