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

[bmarlowe1]

[quote=sportscardtheory;What is ludicrous and symptomatic about discussing a curiosity.[/quote]

What is ludicrous is that this can have affect on the card's price (actually on that I don't really care). What is also ludicrous is the way you jumped on TD206DK because he strongly disagreed with you. He wasn't peeing on your cheerios - he was trying to say something rational. You actually didn't say anything substantive in response to his arguments.

[HercDriver]

Here's a picture of Cleveland's League Park. As you can see by the right field fence, it does indeed look like the picture was taken from the third base dugout. Along with the fact that Harry Lord was the Sox third baseman, maybe we can see who might have made it to third in any of those games. I know it's a long shot, but if somebody has access to box scores from 1911, here the days the Sox played in Cleveland:

May 3-6
June 28 - July 1 (doubleheader on 28th)
Sept 4 (doubleheader, although I'm not sure this was in Cleveland since they played the previous few games in Chicago - may be a mistake in my source)

Anyway, it might be worth a look...

Take Care,
Geno

[HercDriver]

I meant to add another guess...purely conjecture. If you look at the position of the shortstop on the far right, it would lead one to believe that it is a "caught stealing" since the SS seems to be in postion instead of backing up, cutting off throws, or covering second. Again, totally a guess...but that makes it fun. So who has a box score of those games with a Caught Stealing stat?

Cheers,
Geno

[botn]

Geno,

Pretty sure The Sporting News would list the CS stat as would the local Cleveland paper, The Cleveland Plain Dealer. The description on the back of the card is somewhat vague as to whether it was a caught stealing or an ordinary put out.

Greg

[HercDriver]

Greg --

That's why I think the SS is the key to telling the difference. It's obviously not a force play, so the ball had to come from somewhere. If it was an outfielder making the play, the SS wouldn't be in that postition. If it was the infield, it might be the second baseman trying to make that play, but highly unlikely. The only infielder that would have a shot at third generally is the SS if the runner tries to advance on a ground ball to SS. However, in this picture, the SS is facing the pitcher/catcher. I think it's a steal attempt based on the SS's position. Just an educated guess...

Cheers,
Geno

[HercDriver]

And if somebody is checking box scores...he may have been safe with an SB instead of a CS. Hard to tell...

Geno

[sportscardtheory]

Did any of his teammates have that white half-sock on their right leg that he seems to be wearing in all his photos and cards? If anyone can find photos from the other players in those years who it could be, it would be great. I think that in itself could weed out some doubt. There is only a few players it could be, and if none of them wore the white half-sock, what are the odds it's not him.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by HercDriver

here the days the Sox played in Cleveland:

May 3-6
June 28 - July 1 (doubleheader on 28th)
Sept 4 (doubleheader, although I'm not sure this was in Cleveland since they played the previous few games in Chicago - may be a mistake in my source)

May 3rd he went 3 for 5 with a double and a run scored.
May 4th he went 0 for 4.
May 5th he went 1 for 4 with a SB
May 6th he went 2 for 3 with a double and a sacrifice bunt before the game was called in the 8th so the Naps could catch a train.

The box scores do not mention any CS in any of the games.

[botn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

BOTN - you jumped on TD206DK becaause he didn't agree with you. I've yet to see anything from you on this thread that makes any sense.

Can you explain exactly why you think that guy is Jackson? Would you pay a premium for that card?

It is how he disagreed Sir Mark, not that he disagreed. None of my posts were drawing conclusions about the image. Since clear photo id cannot be made, I suggested seeing box scores which may reveal more information about the games played between these two teams. If my posts did not make any sense I would say you need to really start buying the magazines for the articles.

No idea if it is Shoeless and I would not pay a premium for it yet nor would I sell it for a premium yet. A bunch of us on a thread tossing about theories and thinking of ways of researching an image on 98 year old card is not going to result in someone paying $15,000 for a NM example. This process is not what is plaguing our hobby. It is exactly what has made the hobby so great.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by botn

It is how he disagreed Sir Mark, not that he disagreed. None of my posts were drawing conclusions about the image.....No idea if it is Shoeless and I would not pay a premium for it yet nor would I sell it for a premium yet. A bunch of us on a thread tossing about theories and thinking of ways of researching an image on 98 year old card is not going to result in someone paying $15,000 for a NM example. This process is not what is plaguing our hobby. It is exactly what has made the hobby so great.

I'm glad to hear that officer BOTN of the "proper forum tone police" is on the beat. There is nothing wrong with what TD206DK said nor how he said it. In fact he did a pretty good job of containing himself.

Sorry if I mis-interpreted your position on JJ. The only way you're going to get an answer is to find the photo.

[botn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

I'm glad to hear that officer BOTN of the "proper forum tone police" is on the beat. There is nothing wrong with what TD206DK said nor how he said it. In fact he did a pretty good job of containing himself.

Sorry if I mis-interpreted your position on JJ. The only way you're going to get an answer is to find the photo.

Well of course you would not find anything wrong with what T206DK wrote since you have posted with a similar attitude. No problem if you think this is a wild goose chase and you maybe right but to lecture us about how evil threads like this are is just absurd. You aren't really this arrogant in person are you?

And there was no way to misinterpret what I wrote on this thread if you actually took the time to read it so not sure what your motivation was to categorize my comments as not making any sense other than to make trouble.

I do agree with you that finding the source of the image would be more telling but I also find being able to read a play by play or detailed box scores could shed some light on this. This card is a long way from being documented as a Jackson card.

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

First of all I have to say this has turned out to be a great thread until the alien arrived.

There has been a suggestion here that this was not known or thought of in the T202s. I have to disagree, I have seriously been collecting T202s for 10 years and from corresponding with fellow T202 collectors the subject had been brought up that one or more of the center panels might be Jackson.

Another confirmation that this might have been thought by some collecting T202s is the fact that I have found the card to always have commanded a slight premium for a common.

This is not the first example of information known in the hobby for years but if the right person puts out the possibility and gets a good response, than an explosion happens which happened here.

I do love the effort that has been put out to try and find out if the speculation is correct.

Lee

[barrysloate]

Even if it turns out conclusively that it is not Jackson, I think this has been a terrific thread. We've examined every shred of evidence we can come up with, and of course it may lead us to say the original poster was wrong. But the process has been worthwhile, and least for me. I've read every post and agreed with some, questioned others. I know Mark approaches photo i.d. forensically but nobody else on the board has that skill, so we use the trial and error method. It still has been fun.

[benjulmag]

Why must we assume that the center panel photos on T202's were 1911 images? I recognize that the issue was released in 1912, but why then must it follow that only 1911 images were used? For example, with T206's, hasn't it been recognized within the hobby that many of the photos from which the images were based were taken a good several years earlier? Why then couldn't the same apply with T202's?

EDITED to add that if one, by looking at changes in uniform styles, could establish that at least one center panel photo had to have been taken prior to 1911, that would seem to put into issue, absent other evidence, when any center panel photo was taken. Tim, in post #56, in fact does that opining that with this "Jackson T202", it had to predate 1911. So if not 1911, why then not, say, 1908 or 1909?

[HercDriver]

I agree that there's no guarentee that it's a 1911 photo...but it's the best guess. I'd never buy the card just for the fact that it's a Shoeless Joe, but it's fun to try to prove/disprove it.

One other thing to help narrow down the box score is by looking for an Indian CS and a PO for Harry Lord. Thirdbaseman don't get many putouts, so if you had a Jackson (or somebody else) CS with a Lord PO (and a Sullivan assist), that might be a possibility...

Take Care,
Geno

[brett]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Why must we assume that the center panel photos on T202's were 1911 images? I recognize that the issue was released in 1912, but why then must it follow that only 1911 images were used? For example, with T206's, hasn't it been recognized within the hobby that many of the photos from which the images were based were taken a good several years earlier? Why then couldn't the same apply with T202's?

You are correct. Some of the cards from this set have older pictures. For example, the Lajoie and some of the Birmingham cards show them wearing Cleveland uniforms from a few years earlier. However, this card is definitely from 1911 because 1911 was both Lord's first full season with Chicago and Shoeless Joe's first full season with Cleveland AND (coincidently) the year where he wore a white wrap on his right ankle as seen in this picture from that year...

[botn]

EDITED to add that if one, by looking at changes in uniform styles, could establish that at least one center panel photo had to have been taken prior to 1911, that would seem to put into issue, absent other evidence, when any center panel photo was taken. Tim, in post #56, in fact does that opining that with this "Jackson T202", it had to predate 1911. So if not 1911, why then not, say, 1908 or 1909?

Tim merely showed pics from the uniform database which showed that the uniforms from 1911 did not have the inner black collar. On post #64 I showed a picture of Jackson in his home uniform from a game in 1911 with an inner black collar, so the image of the sliding Cleveland player can still be from 1911. If it could be proved the image was from 1910 or earlier there is no way it is Shoeless on the T202. Shoeless joined the team for the last 20 games of the 1910 season and Cleveland did not host Chicago in the 20 game span.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

What is ludicrous is that this can have affect on the card's price (actually on that I don't really care). What is also ludicrous is the way you jumped on TD206DK because he strongly disagreed with you. He wasn't peeing on your cheerios - he was trying to say something rational. You actually didn't say anything substantive in response to his arguments.

Him carrying-on about UFOs and chiding everyone simply because they are curious is SOOO substantive.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

Him carrying-on about UFOs and chiding everyone simply because they are curious is SOOO substantive.

So, you agree that you didn't say anything substantive in response to him. I guess your argument is neither of you said anything substantive - is that right?

He actually typed in a whole paragraph that was pretty substantive. The substantive point is that the research so far done on this thread, while it was somewhat interesting at first, is headed for a dead end. You have to find the photo or at least a record of it.

I hope my tone is OK with you.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

So, you agree that you didn't say anything substantive in response to him. I guess your argument is neither of you said anything substantive - is that right?

He actually typed in a whole paragraph that was pretty substantive. The substantive point is that the research so far done on this thread, while it was somewhat interesting at first, is headed for a dead end. You have to find the photo or at least a record of it.

I hope my tone is OK with you.

Why are you so angry? lol Light some candles...take a bubble bath...listen to whale songs.

[ChiefBenderForever]

If only a couple other teamates had the white ankle band doesn't that mean it is a 70% chance it is him, then add the other photo's shown and I think it is more like 90%. Better odds than a casino or getting a card graded right. I think it needs to be proved it isn't him as much as it is or else it is.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

Why are you so angry? lol Light some candles...take a bubble bath...listen to whale songs.

I'm not angry - you overlooked my on post #125. In fact, my Blackhawks are going to the finals - I couldn't be happier. Ask constable BOTN why he is soooo angry.

[Cat]

never mind