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

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by tbob

Mark- Paul's point about reasonable doubt as used in a courtroom proceeding is erroneous so I wouldn't use that as a basis for any argument. In Paul's defense he is not an attorney and admitted he thought he read somewhere about the definition of reasonable doubt, which is incorrect.......Now if the JJ case was a civil case, I think a jury could find the Plaintiff (Brett) has established his case by a preponderance of the evidence.

I wasn't using Paul's point at all as the basis for what I said - and I don't think his stated percentage is the criterion for reasonable doubt. I did think his comment was pointed in the right direction. The point I made stands on it's own. If you're on the jury in a criminal case, how do you vote?

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

If you're on the jury, how do you vote?

Mark you know I have the up most respect for you and your methods, but given what I see in comparing the newspaper photo and the T202 image I would find JJ guilty.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by brett

EXACTLY!!! In many cases the untrained eye is more acurate than a so-called expert's because they over-analyze things instead of just seeing what's right beneath their nose!

[calvindog]

I think what Bob is asking is whether the jury is watching a civil or criminal trial. If it were me, I'd vote on a civil case that it is Jackson; on a criminal case I'd vote no, that the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has not been met.

[mark evans]

I concur with Jeff, but really don't see the analogy to legal disputes. Would love to buy the card. Until this thread, it was probably affordable.

[Abravefan11]

Comparing the newspaper photo provided by Greg to the T202 image is not the same process in my opinion as comparing a cabinet photo to a studio photo. In this case we're not comparing facial features such as ears, jaw lines, eye sets, etc. The similar positions of the players bodies without any distinctive deviation leads me to believe we are seeing the same event in both photos.

Edited to add: Could Joe have slid into third and Lord have fielded the ball with Joe sliding in the same pose while Lord assumed the same stance and applied the tag while both maintained concurrent body positions throughout the play....yes. I wouldn't bet against it though.

[ChiefBenderForever]

Originally Posted by T206DK

Yeah, Sportscard theory I trash everyone who has anything positive to say. I guess I will go the route of ChicagoT206 then since I have nothing to ad to your Joe Jackson fantasy. damn right I'm angry at my brother. We are polar opposites as far as collecting goes. He is in it for the money , I'm not, and never have been and ahave been pretty diehard about it since the night I saw the local card shop owner open case after case of Topps finest just to get the refractor cards so he could sell them at super inflated prices. You think one kid in town had a chance to buy a pack of those cards from him...NO! him and his greedy employees opened ever pack they could get there hands on. See there are these dealers and speculators out there that tend to make things up about cards in order to jack the value up. threads like this only serve to give them the ammo they need. We have provided them photos and documentation that their lazy asses would never had discovered. frankenstein is born , so to speak. what's positive about that. the only positive thing that happened here is someone named Brett found a card that has a picture of a guy sliding that resembles Shoeless Joe Jackson. It sparked a bunch of us to go to research to prove or disprove Brett's discovery. After 300+ posts Brett thinks he is right and cannot be swayed. He has a certain number of followers in his corner now too that will only see what they want to in these pictures that are posted. There are an equal number who think it's either inconcluisive and foolish to speculate or think it's not Jackson period. So that's about the sum of it for me.
oh, before you talk about not adding anything to the conversation....some of your posts exemplify it ! Why don't you just sit back and read instead of lobbing your insulting and inconsequential remarks at me. Your not going to change my mind , and I highly doubt your going to get a gang of Net54'ers to chase me off the board because you don't seem to like what I say sometimes.

Are you mad because Jackson is on this card or because you and your brother have more copies than anyone else ?

[perezfan]

I am surprised that more has not been made of the base itself. It is obviously the same exact base in both photos. The shading and shadowing are identical... if I knew how to circle these identical portions in red, I would do it. Perhaps someone with better technical skills can assist?

The base indicates that both photos were taken during the same game. If nobody else was thrown out at third in this particular game, I believe you have your answer. Can that statistic be researched?

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Kawika:
We have a problem here. Lichtman is never wrong and Mark is never wrong. Things fall apart; the center cannot hold. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

Originally Posted by calvindog

I think what Bob is asking is whether the jury is watching a civil or criminal trial. If it were me, I'd vote on a civil case that it is Jackson; on a criminal case I'd vote no, that the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has not been met.

Never fear David, I see nothing wrong with Lichtman's comment (if you include Tim's analysis of the fielder in the newspaper photo).

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by perezfan

I am surprised that more has not been made of the base itself. It is obviously the same exact base in both photos. The shading and shadowing are identical... if I knew how to circle these identical portions in red, I would do it. Perhaps someone with better technical skills can assist?

The base indicates that both photos were taken during the same game. If nobody else was thrown out at third in this particular game, I believe you have your answer. Can that statistic be researched?

The base was #3 in my post above.

[orator1]

Forget for a minute the identity of the player sliding into 3rd base. I think the pertinent question now is:
Were these two photos taken a split second apart? If the evidence indicates they are photos from the same play at third, then we know the baserunner is the same in both photos.
Tim's comparison of both photos is right on the mark (see below).

One additional point of comparison is the light-colored stripe along Lord's right pant leg and belt. Closely compare the pant stripe pattern between the two photos - from the belt area down to the sock - and it is clear that they match.
--The belt area in the top photo is a bit brighter, and that additional brightness is also seen in the bottom photo - and in the same pattern.
--Look at the stripe on Lord's right knee. It bends a certain way with the wrinkle in his pants. That same little bend in the stripe is seen on his knee in the bottom photo as well.

If these were two different plays at 3rd, the odds of a match in the stripe pattern are exceedingly small.

Without even considering the player's identity, the matching stripe pattern - along with Tim's observations below - indicates that these two photos were taken a split second apart on the same play. By the way I don't own this card, but I think this is a fascinating discussion.

Tim's observations:

1) The photos as pointed out before were taken from two different angles. The bottom photo was further up the 3rd baseline than the top.

2) Lord's right hand, Lord's head, and Joe's right arm all have moved proportionally from one photo to the next. Joe's right leg, Lord's feet, and Joe's head have all maintained their position. Nothing is out of place from one photo to the next.

3) The angles surrounding the bag including the curvature on the home plate side are identical.

In addition -
4) The dark pattern on the side of 3rd base matches in both photos.
5) Lord's right knee is bending forward in the second photo compared to the first. This is consistent with the 2nd photo being taken a split second after the first as Lord bends down closer to tag the runner.

Paul C.

[Abravefan11]

This should help better illustrate the differences in the angle the T202 photo was taken from and the newspaper photo.

[botn]

Originally Posted by perezfan

I am surprised that more has not been made of the base itself. It is obviously the same exact base in both photos. The shading and shadowing are identical... if I knew how to circle these identical portions in red, I would do it. Perhaps someone with better technical skills can assist?

The base indicates that both photos were taken during the same game. If nobody else was thrown out at third in this particular game, I believe you have your answer. Can that statistic be researched?

I posted this earlier today on post #243. www.botn.com/images/CPD050611.jpg

According to the play by play not many Cleveland players even reached 2nd base in the game. Only 4 hits, 1 BB and 1 throwing error by Chicago resulted in yielding 1 run for Cleveland.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by botn

I posted this earlier today on post #243. .

Sorry Greg I missed that.

[bmarlowe1]

Tim's and Paul's analyses of the fielder in the photos is really good - I think. I would only disagree about the base in the two photos - they are similar, and they can be the same.

[Steve D]

Why did I have to go to Dairy Queen the afternoon this thread started?

I got home, opened the thread, went to ebay, and three of the cards had just been BIN'd

Steve

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by botn

I posted this earlier today on post #243. www.botn.com/images/CPD050611.jpg

According to the play by play not many Cleveland players even reached 2nd base in the game. Only 4 hits, 1 BB and 1 throwing error by Chicago resulted in yielding 1 run for Cleveland.

Right... I know that both you and Tim astutely commented on the third base bag... nobody else seemed to want to acknowledge it.

I was stating that I couldn't believe more was not made of the fact that it is unquestionably from the same game. Other factors throughout this thread have been analyzed/argued/nitpicked to death (i.e. angles, wrinkles, sideburns, leg wraps and collars to name just a few). But nobody seemed to expound on or acknowledge the importance of the base being the same in both photos. To me, this is the most important factor, as it is the only easily identifiable subject in the photo that's static.

If indeed nobody else was thrown out at third in this particular contest, the case would appear to be closed.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Tim's and Paul's analyses of the fielder in the photos is really good - I think. I would only disagree about the base in the two photos - they are similar, and they can be the same.

There are three very identifiable shadows/indentations that the two photos share. One is at the extreme left corner. The other is on the side facing the dugout, and the third is the curved side facing home plate (as stated by Tim).

These bases were not rigid back then, like they are today. They were bags that were loose... like square pillows. There is no chance that the base would appear so identical in two different games (with the same shadowing and indentations in the same exact spots).

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

This should help better illustrate the differences in the angle the T202 photo was taken from and the newspaper photo.

Any way you can put a red line through the wrinkle in the pants like you noted? That would pretty much lock this up as being Jackson.

[brett]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

I've tried to remain impartial throughout this thread but I must admit after closely comparing the newspaper photo with the T202 image I'm on the "It's Joe" team now.

With that said I'm perplexed by the fact that they would use an image of Joe and not mention him on the card. Other players that aren't included on the end panels are mentioned in the description of center panel images.

Yeah, and I can assure you that they were all compensated and signed off on the usage of their names on those cards. Maybe they were simply never able to get Joe to sign off for whatever reason or he just didn't want to be a part of it. Laws back then were much different than they are today and it's quite possible that Hassan had MLB's permission to use any of their player's images as part of the set without having to get the individual player's permission as long as they didn't use his name. I'm a sports agent and there are similar rules today as it related to trading cards. Some companies who don't have MLB's license can use players images and names BUT NO TEAM LOGOS as long as they have a license with the Players Association (like Upper Deck now). On the other hand, card companies have made cards where they didn't specify players names because they didn't have a group licensing agreement (GLA) with the Player's Union, but they could in fact show team logos because they bought the rights from the League. Look at Topps football cards from the mid 70's to around 1981 and you'll see that all the helmet and team logos are airbrushed out (no license from the League). Look at Fleer football cards from the same era and you'll see all the players in team logos, but no specific mention of those players' names (no license from the Players Association). As it turned out, the fans cared more about the players names and statistics and Fleer was put out of the football business for many years. At that point, Topps then got the NFL's rights to use team logos as well. Hope this possibly clears that up.

ALSO, all the players pictured on end panels of the T202 set were from the same exact pictures used in the T205 Gold Border set. Players like Lajoie and Crawford who for whatever reason never granted their permission the be included in the T205 set (but obviously agreed to be included in the T202 set) could only be featured on center panels being as no end-panel artwork existed. Maybe Shoeless Joe never agreed for his name to be used on either. There were several other sets from that era that he didn't appear in as well. In 1915 when he was considered the top player in the game why did he grant Cracker Jack permission to make a card of him, but not American Caramel? I'm sure American Caramel would have liked to include him as they made cards of all the other stars of the day. Looks like Joe wasn't very easy to pin down and maybe he was just way ahead of his time when it came to guarding his intellectual properties.

[brett]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Assume that sllding into 3rd base is a serious felony, punishible by a lengthy prison sentence, perhaps even death. The witnesses to the event in question have all died or mysteriously vanished. All we have is the image from the card.

JJ is arrested. Should he be convicted based on that image?

Based on all the insurmountable evidence that's come out in the past couple days, HELL YES!

[MW1]

Lots of circumstantial evidence piling up here. Another circumstance of importance would be that the final score of the game was 2 to 1 and that Jackson (!) being thrown out at third was apparently a pivotal enough play in the game to make the headlines. Would it be any wonder then that this crucial play was also the middle panel of a T202, highlighting the roles of at least 2 and possibly 3 players involved?

The identifying marks on the far side of third base also seem pretty compelling evidence. Is it at all likely that those marks would exist with that particular appearance in more than one game? Given the position of the sun as well as the various positions from which a picture could have been taken (remember, photographers often ventured out onto the field back then), I doubt it.

Excellent detective work, btw!

[brett]

delete

[MW1]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Let's do some math. Say it takes him 4 seconds to go from second to third. That's 22 feet per second, 264 inches per second. So let's generously say the pics are 5 inches apart -- that is 1/50 of a second. Can the arm move that much?

Peter,

Not an unreasonable estimate but Joe's speed isn't constant between bases if he is starting or stopping. His slide into third may have used up a disproportionate amount of the 4 seconds in your calculation.

I also find it significant that the player in the picture has a particular-sized hat (relative to his head size) and is wearing the hat quite low. Of the mug shots given in this thread of other Cleveland players, it very much appears that the player in the picture most closely resembles Joe Jackson.

[brett]

Originally Posted by Kawika

What is beneath our noses is a blurry photo.
The newspaper photo maybe establishes that it is the same outfield fence.
There is no doubt in my mind that it might be Joe Jackson.

Riiiiiight... and there's no doubt in my mind that the sun might come up this morning.

[brett]

Originally Posted by T206DK

damn right I'm angry at my brother. We are polar opposites as far as collecting goes. He is in it for the money , I'm not, and never have been and ahave been pretty diehard about it since the night I saw the local card shop owner open case after case of Topps finest just to get the refractor cards so he could sell them at super inflated prices. You think one kid in town had a chance to buy a pack of those cards from him...NO!

Wow, sorry about your intense "brother" issues... I think you and he should try counceling before your differences destroy the family.

[Kawika]

Brett: Give it a rest. Save the end zone dance for when you have a positive ID and not a laundry list of conjecture. Either way the Sun will surely rise in Honolulu in the morning; it might be beautiful and it might not be. And Lord might be tagging Jackson and he might not be.

[Exhibitman]

I'm convinced it is most likely Jackson; let the gold rush begin!

I'd still rather have a T200 Cleveland to have a Jackson card.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I'd still rather have a T200 Cleveland to have a Jackson card.

Yeah - I think some folks think that if this is confirmed as Jackson it's going to make the T202 super valuable - let's remember that the ceiling for the value on the T202 probably shouldn't be more then the T200 that shows his face and identifies him by name. That one only sells for a 2-3x premium over a common.

[barrysloate]

If the perception is it is Jackson, the price of the card will soar. This hobby always has been, and still is, about hype.

[Matt]

Barry - aside from the point above I mentioned about the T200, you could get his WG5 or WG6 for $500-$1000 - why would this card, where you can't see his face and he's not mentioned at all carry more value then either the T200 or his WG5/6? I suppose there might be a very short term surge, but 6 months from now why would anyone prefer the T202 middle panel to the other two I mentioned? IMO at ost this should carry a 2x premium over a common T202.

[orator1]

Disregarding the baserunner's identity, is there anyone who believes that these two photos were NOT taken split seconds apart on the same play?
Given the similarities, what evidence is there that these are not the same play?

Paul C.

[barrysloate]

A few reasons: it's brand new, so there will be this rush to get it; and it's a tobacco card, and that's worth something. I say it will sell for more than twice a common, perhaps 3-5x. Just a guess.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The WGs are playing cards and are oddball issues. The T202 is by contrast a relatively major mainstream set. A T202 Jax would be huge.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The WGs are playing cards and are oddball issues. The T202 is by contrast a relatively major mainstream set. A T202 Jax would be huge.

Peter and the T200? Meanwhile even if we call the WGs oddball issues, they identify him by name and picture solely him. Even if confirmed, the player depicted in the center panel is not the main driver of value on T202s; rather it's the named side-panel players. I agree with Barry on a 2x premium vs. a common T202.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Do all the T202s with the center panel of Cobb have Cobb on an end panel?

[Bob Lemke]

I received a PM asking when or even whether this card would be listed in the Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards as picturing Joe Jackson.

I'm sure others have the same question, so I'll respond here.

As theoretically should be the case with every other card in the catalog, the listing of T202 (94) Lord Catches His Man in future edition will reflect how the hobby market perceives (values) the card over a period of time.

If the card's price spikes for a few weeks or months, nothing will change in the catalog. If however, demand builds and remains at a premium, the card's catalog value will reflect that.

As I noted earlier, the listing for card (4A) in the 1913 National Game listing reads (and the corresponding Tom Barker set should, as well), "(Some collectors believe the player in the picture is Ty Cobb and are willing to pay a premium for this card.") That card is listed at $75 in NM, while the other action cards in the set are pegged at $15.

Conversely, we do not note "cameo" appaearances, nor is there additional book value, on other cards such as 1971T #511 Chris Short, with Pete Rose in the background.

I expect to see a flurry of activity for the T202, but whether increased market values will be sustained is an open question. I suspect that for this card to achieve lasting status and premium value, it will be necessary for PSA and/or SGC to recogize the guest appearance of Joe Jackson on their slabs.

In any event, the Standard Catalog will not be able to make any changes on this card until the 2012 edition.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Do all the T202s with the center panel of Cobb have Cobb on an end panel?

No - there is an Austin/Stovall with a Cobb mid-panel. He is identified on the back of the panel though as the card is titled "Ty Cobb Steals Third." Even so, I don't think that one sells for nearly what the ones with him on the end-panel do, despite it having the iconic Cobb center panel image. A closer parallel would be the "A Great Batsman" card which has Lajoie in the center, but not on the sides. According to the SCD that one carries no premium over a common even though Lajoie is IDed by name on the back.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Re the shortstop issue, I think Tannehill, who threw Jax out, may well have been playing second as was previously suggested, and that despite also being listed at second, Zeider may have been at shortstop and not involved in the play. Zeider played various infield positions that season according to Baseball Reference and, tellingly, in the account of the game he made a high throw to first for an error. Much more likely an error by a shortstop. So that objection may indeed be disposed with.

EDIT Also more likely Jax would have tried to advance on a grounder to the right side.

[barrysloate]

Bob- I'm shocked you are already getting inquiries on this. When did Brett start this thread, a couple of days ago?

[T206DK]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Right... I know that both you and Tim astutely commented on the third base bag... nobody else seemed to want to acknowledge it.

I was stating that I couldn't believe more was not made of the fact that it is unquestionably from the same game. Other factors throughout this thread have been analyzed/argued/nitpicked to death (i.e. angles, wrinkles, sideburns, leg wraps and collars to name just a few). But nobody seemed to expound on or acknowledge the importance of the base being the same in both photos. To me, this is the most important factor, as it is the only easily identifiable subject in the photo that's static.

If indeed nobody else was thrown out at third in this particular contest, the case would appear to be closed.

is it for certain that teams used different bases or clean ones then before each and every game. I remember reading that teams used the same bags until they wore out. the practice of using new bases each game was a modern concept. Otherwise that dark mark on the bag is quite interesting if its not a shadow or something of that nature.

[T206DK]

Originally Posted by JohnnyHarmonica

Are you mad because Jackson is on this card or because you and your brother have more copies than anyone else ?

why would I be mad that Jackson is on the card ? Contrary to your assumption, I would be glad. that would mean I have 2 more Jackson cards in my collection, and an interesting story as to how this was discovered, to be able to tell others. I'm not angry that my brother was advantageous and went and bought more of this card after I mentioned this to him. If he makes a lot of money off of them selling them that's up to him isn't it. I've shared my views with him many times on investing/speculating vs. collecting . He's not a member of this board , never has been, so the board members that contacted him sought him out. I gave noone his contact info. Johhnyharmonica what's your deal ? I don't get your angle at all here, or are you just being sarcastic ? some of you need to learn how to take criticism a little better. I could have come right out and agreed with the poster of this thread simply based on the picture he initilly showed. I didn't, so deal with it. the more evidence that is found that is compelling the more I will be convinced. that's how most people I know would approach something like this. they wouldn't just look at a few pics and say...." I now think it is definitely Jackson on the card". So now I am singled out as the roustabout, the troublemaker, the negative guy . whatever ! I never attacked the poster of this thread or made any comments defaming him or impuning his posts. I do apologize for my first bit of sarcasm , but I think I already did that 200 posts ago.

are you sure you aren't the one who is mad or jealous ? I don't get some of you guys on this board sometimes. Very petty and very high schoolish for people that are grown men, or at least purport to be.

[Leon]

Not that it matters a lot but put me in the camp of "it's probably him but not ready to call it definitive". I do think it's him from all evidence shown but I am just not ready to call it Jackson yet. Personally, I think it needs to be definitive for me to concede it being him. If I had to attribute my percentage of thinking it's him, I would go 75%.....I also don't think the value should sway a lot if it IS him....maybe 2x - 3x......it's not a good pic of him and he isn't mentioned....That's my half cent, without sarcasm.

[brett]

Originally Posted by Bob Lemke

Conversely, we do not note "cameo" appaearances, nor is there additional book value, on other cards such as 1971T #511 Chris Short, with Pete Rose in the background.

BIG difference... in this card Joe Jackson isn't in the background, he's the centerpiece!

[brett]

Originally Posted by Kawika

Brett: Give it a rest. Save the end zone dance for when you have a positive ID and not a laundry list of conjecture.

The dance started 2 days ago. It's him.

[Jacklitsch]

I know that this is not going to be politically correct but some of you guys remind me of the "birthers".

Here we have a 1911 newspaper article that shows Jackson out at third with a headline proclaiming same. While the picture in the newspaper is very grainy there appears to be enough evidence (at least to me) that the two subject photos were taken within seconds of each and both depict the event as appears in the headline.

[Robextend]

Great thread. I am also in the camp of "It's probably him, but we can't be 100% sure".

Also, I always thought of the T202 centerpiece as more of a novelty. If I was collecting Joe Jackson items, and we knew for sure it was him, I would certainly pay a nice premium. However without being 100% certain, which we aren't, I can't see that happening.

Rob

[sayhey24]

Two things are abundantly clear here:

It's Jackson (GREAT detective work).

The original poster is far from gracious.

Greg

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by perezfan

There are three very identifiable shadows/indentations that the two photos share. One is at the extreme left corner. The other is on the side facing the dugout, and the third is the curved side facing home plate (as stated by Tim).

These bases were not rigid back then, like they are today. They were bags that were loose... like square pillows. There is no chance that the base would appear so identical in two different games (with the same shadowing and indentations in the same exact spots).

I don't agree with you about the base - the newpaper photo is not clear enough to be sure the markings and indentations on the base are the same. But.....see my next post..

[ChiefBenderForever]

Originally Posted by T206DK

why would I be mad that Jackson is on the card ? Contrary to your assumption, I would be glad. that would mean I have 2 more Jackson cards in my collection, and an interesting story as to how this was discovered, to be able to tell others. I'm not angry that my brother was advantageous and went and bought more of this card after I mentioned this to him. If he makes a lot of money off of them selling them that's up to him isn't it. I've shared my views with him many times on investing/speculating vs. collecting . He's not a member of this board , never has been, so the board members that contacted him sought him out. I gave noone his contact info. Johhnyharmonica what's your deal ? I don't get your angle at all here, or are you just being sarcastic ? some of you need to learn how to take criticism a little better. I could have come right out and agreed with the poster of this thread simply based on the picture he initilly showed. I didn't, so deal with it. the more evidence that is found that is compelling the more I will be convinced. that's how most people I know would approach something like this. they wouldn't just look at a few pics and say...." I now think it is definitely Jackson on the card". So now I am singled out as the roustabout, the troublemaker, the negative guy . whatever ! I never attacked the poster of this thread or made any comments defaming him or impuning his posts. I do apologize for my first bit of sarcasm , but I think I already did that 200 posts ago.

are you sure you aren't the one who is mad or jealous ? I don't get some of you guys on this board sometimes. Very petty and very high schoolish for people that are grown men, or at least purport to be.

I just asked you a question, and apologize if that was petty. I wish I was in high school !