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

[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.

[packs]

The photo posted has similarities, it's a Cleveland player in a Cleveland uniform being tagged out by Harry Lord at third base. So all the parralells made between it and the T202 boil down to a player in a Cleveland uniform sliding in on Harry Lord. Any photo of a Cleveland player sliding feet first into third and obscured by a 100 year old not very clear newspaper image is going to appear similar. You can't see Jackson's face in the newspaper image, so what leads you to believe it has anything to do with the T202 image? All points of reference when comparing the two boil down to uniform match ups, but those points of reference are going to be there for any photo of any player in the uniform.

What you can see in the newspaper image is that Jackson has thrown his hands up near his head, which to me suggests a pretty hard slide. What about the T202 photo would lead you to believe that the card features Jackson in a position mili-seconds before the one he ends up in on the newspaper? To me there is nothing to suggest it. The sliding player on the T202 appears to me to be casually sliding into third for an out. In the newspaper photo, Jackson looks like he was trying to make a play at third, not sliding in to be called out.

Speaking about logistics. Any way you slice it, there is always going to be a greater probability that any one person doesn't appear in an unidentified photo when there are an overwhelming amount of other people it COULD be. So speaking purely in numbers, there is a greater chance it is not Jackson than it is. That is why it is logical to assume it is not Jackson. It has nothing to do with intelligence and I'm not claiming I know the answer, but looking at the scenario logically, I don't see how you could find it is Jackson other than wanting it to be.

Also, if it were Jackson and the set owners wanted to feature Jackson on a card, why would they choose to and not identify him? Because they don't have his rights and this is a way to slip past that. I can buy that. But the set also doesn't feature Wagner, probably due to rights, and if they wanted to I highly doubt they would print a photo of him and just label him as a "player" or "runner." It was suggested that the photos were chosen earlier in the season before Jackson was a star, but I don't think that is the case because the photos go all the way up to the World Series. So, you have an elite hitter who is bursting onto the baseball scene and has just given the great Cobb a run for his money for batting title, but the photographer fails to label the photo as being of Jackson and you slip his image into your set anonymously? Why? If this set were produced today and Pujols were to appear in a center panel but not license himself for an individual panel, do you think he would just be a "runner" or would he be Albert Pujols? Or would he just not appear in the set?