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

[brett]

Nice additional work Rob. I appreciate the help I've gotten from you and everyone else throughout this post. Because of our collective effort I can now tell people with 100% certainty that I'm the guy who discovered what is now known as a "new" Shoeless Joe Jackson card... and that 's pretty cool. Thanks.

[PolarBear]

If you discovered some modesty, that would be pretty cool too.

[ElCabron]

Wait, what???

I'm sorry if I'm not understanding this correctly and it was explained earlier in the thread. I just glanced at the last few posts to see why the hell it was bumped to the top of the board again.

So, what does that newspaper photo have to do with the image on the T202??? It's clearly not the same photo (if this was already pointed out I apologize) and it's not evidence of anything other than Joe Jackson actually wore a proper Cleveland uniform. How does the newspaper fit in as a piece of "evidence" for this "discovery" that was worthy of over 600 posts?

-Ryan

[nolemmings]

Ryan, these are the arguments:

1. The T202 shows Lord of Chicago tagging a Cleveland player at a game played in Cleveland. Harry Lord did not play for the ChiSox in Cleveland until 1911. Thus the t202 card shows game action from 1911.

2. The photo is from a 1911 game at Cleveland against the White Sox in which Harry Lord was the third baseman for Chicago, and Jackson was tagged out at third. The accompanying story confirms that Joe Jackson was the only Clevelander to be retired at 3b that day.

3. The photo and the card image were taken at the same stadium, and the angle of the two photos was very similar--not unusual given where photogs were allowed to position themselves in foul territory.

4. There are remarkable similarities in at least the fielder's uniform and the characteristics of the base to suggest that these photos were taken moments apart.

5. JoeJax was one of only a few Indians (apparently) to wear that white half-sock in 1911.


To be more certain, we could analyze the other ten games played between these two teams in Cleveland that year, to see if other Indians were retired in a tag play at third with Harry Lord manning the base. The play does not appear to be a caught stealing, given the position of Lord's feet to the runner and base, so we are left with a throw from an infielder or outfielder to 3b. That is not a common play, but not freakishly rare either. Then, if such other tag plays occurred, there might be the matter of the sock too, although I suppose any player could have been wearing that type of sock on that particular day for whatever reason. Still, from what's been provided so far, it seems more likely than not that the t202 shows Joe.

[botn]

Originally Posted by NoizeBringer

Wait, what???

I'm sorry if I'm not understanding this correctly and it was explained earlier in the thread. I just glanced at the last few posts to see why the hell it was bumped to the top of the board again.

So, what does that newspaper photo have to do with the image on the T202??? It's clearly not the same photo (if this was already pointed out I apologize) and it's not evidence of anything other than Joe Jackson actually wore a proper Cleveland uniform. How does the newspaper fit in as a piece of "evidence" for this "discovery" that was worthy of over 600 posts?

-Ryan

Glancing at the last few posts on a 600 plus post is a very reasonable approach to getting an understanding the content of a thread. In fact I do the same thing when I pick up a novel to read. I just go to the last page. Boy does that save time and I can read a few dozen a day.

I don't want to make you any angrier than you already are, though I am not entirely sure that is possible, but the last part of this thread was discussing a second T202 which may contain an image of Jackson. So this thread contains 2 different newspaper photos and 2 different T202s. Maybe once you get your blood pressure down you can identify the card and newspaper image to which you are referring.

[martyogelvie]

It was mentioned early in this thread that several collectors had believed for years that the 202 contained a photo of Jackson.. so discovered is a bad choice of words
Shined a light on it would probably be more appropriate!

[brett]

Originally Posted by martyogelvie

It was mentioned early in this thread that several collectors had believed for years that the 202 contained a photo of Jackson.. so discovered is a bad choice of words
Shined a light on it would probably be more appropriate!

Marty, all I know is that until this post was started nobody openly mentioned it as Shoeless Joe on the internet, in print, or anywhere else and now that's all changed. To those who say I'm immodest or errogant... all I can say is that I'm very proud to make a contribution to the hobby I love and maybe I've been a little over-exuberant about it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Brett, ya done good ... now stop tootin' your own horn.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by brett

I've been a little over-exuberant about it.

I agree, 100% !!!

[martyogelvie]

Originally Posted by brett

Marty, all I know is that until this post was started nobody openly mentioned it as Shoeless Joe on the internet, in print, or anywhere else and now that's all changed. To those who say I'm immodest or errogant... all I can say is that I'm very proud to make a contribution to the hobby I love and maybe I've been a little over-exuberant about it.

Brett,
I think you definately have opened a window.. good job.

[uffda51]

Originally Posted by martyogelvie

It was mentioned early in this thread that several collectors had believed for years that the 202 contained a photo of Jackson.. so discovered is a bad choice of words
Shined a light on it would probably be more appropriate!

In view of later history, maybe "Shined a black light on it . . . ."

[martindl]

Originally Posted by botn

Glancing at the last few posts on a 600 plus post is a very reasonable approach to getting an understanding the content of a thread. In fact I do the same thing when I pick up a novel to read. I just go to the last page. Boy does that save time and I can read a few dozen a day.

While you have a point, wading through all the chest thumping and 'oh, look at me' drivel that makes up half the thread, is it any wonder that people might just give up and ask for a summary?