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

[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

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by jmk59

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.

The different sets using common images is extremely important in this discussion and as a basis for Joe not being included. At the time these cards were printed and still today, the artwork and setup was the most costly part of the printing process. This is why we see images used over and over in different sets throughout a number of years.

Once Joe missed the T206 boat he was doomed to not be in other ATC issues using those images. The T206 set was so large and full of stars that I don't feel they were concerned with adding Joe or any other player that may have been left out of The Monster.

American Caramel is a little bit more of a riddle as they did include him in the E90-1 set but not others that used that sets images.

[Bridwell]

How about Grover Alexander? He was a superstar rookie in 1911 leading the NL with 28 wins. Does he appear in any of the early tobacco sets?

Joe Jackson appeared in only 30 games prior to 1911, so he was pretty much a rookie in 1911 also.

Ron R

[jmk59]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Once Joe missed the T206 boat he was doomed to not be in other ATC issues using those images. The T206 set was so large and full of stars that I don't feel they were concerned with adding Joe or any other player that may have been left out of The Monster.

OK. That's a good point. I am thinking that if he was a star they would want him in it and find an image - no big deal. But I suppose it's very possible that they really didn't care whether he was in it or not and decided not to pursue it for that reason. Still, I would think it was a conscious decision and not that they didn't even think of it.

J

[tedzan]

I do admire your intellectual curiosity in this matter per your first post (#53). In particular your summation......
"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."

So, don't back off from those sentiments. Your comments echo my contentions here that the "snubbing" of Joe
Jackson was NOT inadvertent.
I was hoping to generate some more meaningful discussion here. And perhaps, someone would provide us some
substantial info as to why Jackson was not depicted in the major BB card sets during his best years (1911-1920).
Some of us have bantered about ACC and ATC printing processes and the like....well here is what I imagine really
occurred (based on all that I have read).

Connie Mack listened to his scouts regarding Joe Jax superb all-around play at Greenville (Class D ball), 1908. Mack
invited Joe to the play with the A's on Aug 25, 1908. NOTE....this coincides closely with his inclusion in the E90 set.
In that Sept, Joe had only 23 at bats for the A's. Joe was very uncomfortable in Philadelphia, as he did not get along
with his A's teammates, many of whom teased him mercilessly about his illiteracy and lack of polish. Virtually all of
Connie Mack's A's were College graduates.

But there was another factor in those early days of BB......there was a strong predjudice against ballplayers from the
"Deep South" by the mostly Northern-bred players of that day. The best example of this was when Cobb started in BB.

Anyhow, Connie Mack sensed all this and sent Joe down to Savannah for the most of the 1909 season. Then in 1910,
to New Orleans. Joe won the batting title in both those Leagues. He led New Orleans to the Pennant in the Southern
Association. In Sept of 1910, Mack traded Joe to Cleveland. Joe fit in well with his teammates there, as many of them
were Southern-bred, or had played in the Minors down South. The rest is history.

Please excuse my long-winded story here, but I feel it provides the background for why Joe Jax was deliberately snubbed
by many of the major set producers (E106, M116, T206, T207, T213-T216)....namely the Northern based company's pred-
judice and their lasting perception of Joe as a "country bumpkin".

I was was surprised to read about the anti-South sentiments that lingered that many years after the Civil War during the
early part of the 20th Century.
The advent of WWI considerably ameliorated this sentiment.

Thanks again Joann,

TED Z

[tedzan]

I cannot agree with your......

"Once Joe missed the T206 boat he was doomed to not be in other ATC issues using those images. The T206 set
was so large and full of stars that I don't feel they were concerned with adding Joe or any other player that may
have been left out of The Monster.

American Caramel is a little bit more of a riddle as they did include him in the E90-1 set but not others that used
that sets images."

The 2nd wave (350-only series) of 14 Southern Leaguers should have included him in the New Orleans uniform. This
series of cards were printed coincident with the T210 OLD MILL cards. American Litho. (ALC) had already designed
their printing plate of Joe. He was not an unknown by that time. He had excelled with Savannah in 1909 and was
excelling with New Orleans in 1910. He was the "hottest" prospect in the Minors. Certainly more prominent than any
of the So. Lger's that were portrayed.

Regarding the American Caramel Company's (ACC) E90-1 set, if you read my aforementioned "Plank theory", it told
how close Connie Mack and Daniel Lafean (the founder of ACC) were....and, that is why in late 1908 this set's 1st
series was dominated with the A's players. Subsequently, Lafean sold ACC and went into Pennsylvania politics.

TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by tedzan

The 2nd wave (350-only series) of 14 Southern Leaguers should have included him in the New Orleans uniform. This
series of cards were printed coincident with the T210 OLD MILL cards. American Litho. (ALC) had already designed
their printing plate of Joe. He was not an unknown by that time. He had excelled with Savannah in 1909 and was
excelling with New Orleans in 1910. He was the "hottest" prospect in the Minors. Certainly more prominent than any
of the So. Lger's that were portrayed.

TED Z

Due to the T206 timeline he couldn't be included in a New Orleans uniform. He played for New Orleans in 1910 and the additional 14 southern league players were distributed in the spring of 1910. This would mean that the additional 14 were designed in late 1909 or the first few months of 1910 before Joe played in New Orleans.

[tedzan]

If the timeline is a little tricky, then I'll settle for a Savannah uniform and team caption for Joe. The image was already designed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd say Savannah players are in the series of 48 So. Lgers. ?


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by tedzan

If the timeline is a little tricky, then I'll settle for a Savannah uniform and team caption for Joe. The image was already designed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd say Savannah players are in the series of 48 So. Lgers. ?

TED Z

One player represents Savannah in the set and he was chosen from the 1908 season and appeared in the first 34 southern league set in 1909.

Joe played for Savannah (South Atlantic League) in 1909 and when ATC added 14 additional southern leaguers they could have added him but apparently wanted to increase the number of players in the Southern Association , Virginia League, and Texas League.

[T206DK]

this is kind of what I was talking about several posts ago. He was considered a "rube" and was discriminated against because of his southern roots and simple ways. This angle makes sense and is supported

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by T206DK

this is kind of what I was talking about several posts ago. He was considered a "rube" and was discriminated against because of his southern roots and simple ways. This angle makes sense and is supported

How do you explain the 48 southern league players that were included if it was a question of discrimination? The T206 set is full of "southern rubes."

The southern league players were selected from their previous seasons. The 34 included in the first run were selected from the 1908 season and printed in the summer of 1909. The 14 added were taken from the 1909 season and distributed in March of 1910.

IMO it wasn't discrimination, it wasn't an anti Joe campaign, it was timing. The facts I believe back that up.

As with any topic we can agree to disagree.

[jmk59]

But it's not just the T206 set. It's several important sets of the era.

If it's just timing and photos, then the absence of a significant player from the significant sets of a significant commercial activity (baseball cards as promos) would amount to "it just didn't work out".

I don't know jack from jackola about the dates of issue and any of that, so I realize that I don't have a real substantive leg to stand on here. But from a logic standpoint, it really seems to me that it would have had to have been something more affirmative than simply not working out. I do understand the thought that maybe they decided that Cobb, Johnson, Matty, etc, were enough. Still, there were images available, and players being added, removed or changed here and there over the course of the distribution of these sets.

Joann

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by jmk59

But it's not just the T206 set. It's several important sets of the era.

Joann

Of those sets that use the same images as the T206 set, was a new player included that didn't first appear in T206?

[teetwoohsix]

This has been fun to read, and I have been learning alot in this thread.Tim, I think you gave the best and most convincing explanation in post#55. Not saying anyone else is wrong- just stating my opinion after reading this thread through a few times.

Clayton

[botn]

Tim does make some valid points, once again, and any other explanation regrading Jackson's exclusion from the set is at best far fetched.