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

[Abravefan11]

We may be talking about two different photos and center panels. I was referencing the photo that started this thread. Greg found the companion photo for "Lord Catches His Man" in a newspaper photo from July.

[nolemmings]

I see the confusion, as it appears Greg was mistaken, either that or retrosheet is in error. In post 243 Greg says he got the photo from the July 6, 1911 paper, but that must be a typo--he surely meant May 6. If you blow up the story that appears with the photo, you see how ChiSox pitcher Frank Lange baffled the Indians in that game, beating them 2-1. That matches with the retrosheet site for the game played May 5th-- the Indians 20th game of the season.
http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1911/VCLE01911.htm

[botn]

It is not July 6 but May 6 issue of the Cleveland Plains Dealer. Sorry guys...

[Rich Klein]

Only Teddy Z actually saw these players play in person

[uffda51]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Only Teddy Z actually saw these players play in person

And Barry!

[packs]

There are a lot of ways to make yourself believe it is Joe Jackson, but the logical conclusion to draw is that it is not.

I don't even think that newspaper photo resembles the T202 in the slightest. In that newspaper photo it appears as though Joe is making an aggressive slide into third. The T202 photo couldn't appear more casual.

[nolemmings]

Sorry to disagree. I truly have no dog in the fight, and could not care less if it is or is not Joe Jackson. You, on the other hand, appear to be the perpetual skeptic--i.e., you are finding whatever you can to make yourself believe it is not Joe Jackson.

Please explain how your conclusion is any more "logical" than those who claim it is JoeJax. And please outline your qualifications to state that the photo and the image in t202 do not resemble each other "in the slightest", when many, many others here would say otherwise. Yours is an opinon that appears to be no more qualified and perhaps less so than others. You are welcome to it, of course, but to intone that others are being fanciful in theirs and are being "illogical" smacks of condescension to me.