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

[benjulmag]

I'm assuming that the Boston road uniforms in that era do not resemble what Lord is wearing, correct? If incorrect, then we cannot rule out a year predating 1911.

Assuming Lord could not have been wearing such a uniform before 1911 (thereby dating the image to 1911), for those so inclined, there is more that can be done -- looking up newspaper accounts of the games to see if any make mention of plays at third involving Cleveland players. Such research in and of itself will not establish who the player is, but it can give more clues.

[botn]

I had already suggested in a much earlier post that play by play or detailed box scores might reveal more. Bob Lemke stated he has TSN which would cover games from 1911. I think going to the local paper, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, is going to prove to be the best source.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by botn

I had already suggested in a much earlier post that play by play or detailed box scores might reveal more. Bob Lemke stated he has TSN which would cover games from 1911. I think going to the local paper, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, is going to prove to be the best source.

I posted Joe's info from the May 3-6th homestand above; the paper did not say anything about CS.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

I'm assuming that the Boston road uniforms in that era do not resemble what Lord is wearing, correct? If incorrect, then we cannot rule out a year predating 1911.

Assuming Lord could not have been wearing such a uniform before 1911 (thereby dating the image to 1911), for those so inclined, there is more that can be done -- looking up newspaper accounts of the games to see if any make mention of plays at third involving Cleveland players. Such research in and of itself will not establish who the player is, but it can give more clues.

Corey - the fielder's uniform appears consistent with the White Sox 1903 - 1912. It's definitely not Boston.

I agree with the comment on newspaper articles. The problem is that they may omit a play at third, so how can one know?

What is needed is to find that photo in a newspaper. Doing it with microfilm is not too bad a job, but doing it online if one has such access to Cleveland papers takes forever (I have tried similar quite few times).

[brett]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

I'm assuming that the Boston road uniforms in that era do not resemble what Lord is wearing, correct? If incorrect, then we cannot rule out a year predating 1911.

Assuming Lord could not have been wearing such a uniform before 1911 (thereby dating the image to 1911), for those so inclined, there is more that can be done -- looking up newspaper accounts of the games to see if any make mention of plays at third involving Cleveland players. Such research in and of itself will not establish who the player is, but it can give more clues.

It's CLEARLY a Chicago uniform that Lord is wearing, and it's obviously in Cleveland so it's now been established that the picture is from 1911. There is a lot of evidence now that it's likely Shoeless Joe, and NO evidence that would indicate that it isn't.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by brett

There is a lot of evidence now that it's likely Shoeless Joe, and NO evidence that would indicate that it isn't.

Brett remember that I don't need to have any evidence to say that it's not Joe and you need something factual to say that it is. Right now even with all the things that point to it possibly being Joe you don't have anything definitive to say that it is. With that said I encourage you and everyone else to keep looking.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Brett remember that I don't need to have any evidence to say that it's not Joe and you need something factual to say that it is. Right now even with all the things that point to it possibly being Joe you don't have anything definitive to say that it is. With that said I encourage you and everyone else to keep looking.

Exactly. It would be great if this turns out to be Jackson, but absent a corroborating photo from a newspaper or archive you just can't say with any certainty that it is Jackson.

Despite the minor blow ups this thread really is a great one and despite what others might say this really is good for the hobby to have these types of discussions.

[brett]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Exactly. It would be great if this turns out to be Jackson, but absent a corroborating photo from a newspaper or archive you just can't say with any certainty that it is Jackson.

Dan, I understand what you're saying, but if I show you a photo of Barack Obama without a corroborating photo from a newspaper or archive does that mean you can't say without certainty that it's him? There have been many, many instances of newspapers and card companies misidentifying people throughout the years. Does that mean that just because they say it's somebody that it has to be true? Good luck finding the photographer or photo editor from 100 years ago. The same way that an old autograph or jersey is authenticated if everything about it looks consistent with it's day, everything about this card now points to it being Shoeless Joe Jackson... The photo is confirmed to be from 1911, Joe was known to have worn a right ankle wrap that year, he physically looks the same as every other photo that shows him sliding, and most importantly if you've seen enough pics of Shoeless Joe you would know by just looking at his face on that card (not on a low-resolution computer scan) that it's him. The world heard it here on the Net 54 Forum first! You are all very welcome, and if there's any sort of award that comes with this Leon can just accept it on my behalf and donate it to the HOF.

[barrysloate]

Mark- I still think this is a good thread because it has allowed collectors a chance to research a photo and share their findings. That's a lot more than what goes on in most threads around here. The fact that the research may lead to a dead end, or to an erroneous finding, doesn't mean it's not a good one. At least it has made some people think. What's wrong with that?

[T206DK]

I don't know about any injuries Jackson may have had until about 1914, but I have also wondered if the wrap or sock he wears was to protect his leg against being hit by pitchers or from foul balls. here is an interesting link from SABR on Shoeless Joe http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?...=1715&pid=6843

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Mark- I still think this is a good thread because it has allowed collectors a chance to research a photo and share their findings. That's a lot more than what goes on in most threads around here. The fact that the research may lead to a dead end, or to an erroneous finding, doesn't mean it's not a good one. At least it has made some people think. What's wrong with that?

My thoughts exactly. I would actually think that Mark would love threads like this because it gives him an opportunity to educate and also a new subject for research. I do believe that Brett is jumping the gun here...there's probably enough evidence for a Texas district attorney that this is Jackson, but like I said before, absent an identifying photo from the photographer this will not be conclusive.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Mark- I still think this is a good thread because it has allowed collectors a chance to research a photo and share their findings. That's a lot more than what goes on in most threads around here. The fact that the research may lead to a dead end, or to an erroneous finding, doesn't mean it's not a good one. At least it has made some people think. What's wrong with that?

Dan:
I would actually think that Mark would love threads like this because it gives him an opportunity to educate and also a new subject for research

------------------------------------------

Yeah - OK

[orator1]

Here are close-ups of the four players wearing the white ankle wrap on the right ankle, compared to the player in question. A higher resolution scan of the card is needed for a better comparison. Then maybe players can be ruled out based on facial features.
Is there any significance that the first and fourth players appear to have caps where the "C" is faded and slightly off center? The 2nd and 3rd players appear to have darker caps with a whiter "C" that appears to be more centered, like the hat of the player in question.

Paul C.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by brett

It's CLEARLY a Chicago uniform that Lord is wearing, and it's obviously in Cleveland so it's now been established that the picture is from 1911. There is a lot of evidence now that it's likely Shoeless Joe, and NO evidence that would indicate that it isn't.

Brett,

That's not how photo ID works. The burden is not on me to prove it is not Joe Jackson. Rather, it's your burden to prove it is. Collectively the posts on this thread make a compelling case it might very well be Jackson. But can you PROVE no other Cleveland players that year did not wear a white ankle wrap, or did not have facial features that RESEMBLE Jackson's? In my experiences with photo ID, I can tell you there have been a number of instances such as this where people in the utmost of good faith thought an image depicted someone, only to subsequently learn it (almost certainly) did not.

Again, I'm not saying it is not Jackson. I'm only saying that without more we'll simply never know.