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

[CW]

Originally Posted by Matt

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.

Originally Posted by Matt

Brett - your off base here - the standard convention for cataloging T202s is based on the end panels and the title of the center panel. Consider the Lajoie I posted about above. He is even mentioned in the text on the back, but that card is not cataloged as Lajoie (cataloged, as are all T202s, by the title, this one is "A Great Batsman"), and is not part of any "Lajoie master set." It's just a T202 that has Lajoie in the center panel with another player; same here. In fact that one has much better credentials then this one for what you are suggesting - the back uses his name and the text on the back focuses on the batter (as opposed to the one in question which focuses on the 3B).

To suggest this card "features" Joe Jax assumes the manufactures intended him to be the centerpiece. Bob's verbiage is much more apt - he is a cameo on this card - the printers of this card wouldn't have cared if Joe Jax or any other player was being thrown out at 3rd.

This has been a fascinating thread, and it has been interesting to watch
it unfold, from Brett's initial discovery, to Greg's excellent detective work
in locating the comparison image, to the overall acceptance by the skeptics
here that it is indeed Shoeless Joe (count me as one initially).

I believe Matt's posts, two of which I quoted above, make some excellent
points as well. I feel that even if the hobby accepts Joe's inclusion on
the center panel as fact (which I believe will eventually happen), you will
not see a big increase in the value of this card. Sure, initially we will see
a spike in ending prices, but overall I don't really think anyone will be getting
rich off the new info about this card and its center panel. The card is starting
off as relatively inexpensive, limiting its "upside" for investors.

As others have said, though, I guess time will tell....