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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I would suggest that if you do want to stick around here after this thread dies down and contribute further (and I hope you will) that you tone down the MB3 imitation.

Barkman could give this dickhead lessons in civility. Pathetic.

[martyogelvie]

when I first looked at the newspapper photo i thought now way was this the same play.. the more I look at it the more it looks like it is from teh same play...

is this a case of my mind seeing what it wants to see.????

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by martyogelvie

is this a case of my mind seeing what it wants to see.????

Marty IMO no, given the observations made by Paul, Mark, and myself.

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.

Mark's comments:
As to the newpaper photo, let me try to provide a possible explanation for the socks and shadows (if this has already been done, sorry but I didn't see it). This needs to be justified and it isn't artist overpaint:

From the card and the very small shadow on the back of Lord's right foot we can see that the sun is high above and somewhat to our right. The sock on his back leg is partly shadowed by his own body. In the newpaper photo, he has moved that left foot forward - more under his body - hence it is more shadowed.

As to the slider's high leg - the one we see with the wrap on the card - we do see the wrap a little bit in the newpaper photo - just to our left of Lord's right leg - a thin strip of white - then it goes black perhaps due to the shadow of Lord's body as he slides under him. The extreme black and white is what we get because this is a half-tone image.

[teetwoohsix]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuWD7VrHquU

This has been a great thread, is there anyway to turn this back into a fun thing?

[brett]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Barkman could give this dickhead lessons in civility. Pathetic.

Now I'm a dickhead... What's pathetic is guys like you who talk tough while hiding behind your keyboard. Loser.

[sportscardtheory]

This is a crude paint job, but it shows why I believe it's the same play. That's a very defined wrinkle and it would be nearly impossible that it happened twice the exact same way.

[Abravefan11]

You had requested this image yesterday and I was just working on it for you. It's a little rough but hopefully shows your point that the fold of the pants at the knee shown by the piping is very similar.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

This is a crude paint job, but it shows why I believe it's the same play. That's a very defined wrinkle and it would be nearly impossible that it happened twice the exact same way.

[Our posts overlapped - but my response was to sportscardtheory before TIm's last post just above.]

Actually that's a nice job. If you magnify the images more you can run the comparison farther up and they do match.

[brett]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Actually that's a nice job. If you magnify the images more you can run the comparison farther up and they do match.

Save it. You've already been exposed as a fraud.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by brett

Save it. You've already been exposed as a fraud.

At least when I get defensive, it's usually in retort to something I find questionable. Why attack him when he's just having casual discussion.

[Tcards-Please]

Originally Posted by brett

Save it. You've already been exposed as a fraud.

Brett,

I thoroughly enjoyed this thread when it started. You had many of the board members contributing and joining in to help you identify and support your theory. Others needed more than what was initially a speculation based on your initial post and picture. They weren't wrong, nor a fraud, they just needed more than what had been given up to that point.

Just because Mark didn't suddenly jump on the Jax wagon at the beginning didn't mean he was against your theory, he just needed more info. I think that people are coming around a little at a time based on the updated information. No need to slam people and make personal jabs because they didn't agree with you at the beginning.

Let it go, hold your head high knowing that you were right and move on.

Great job to all involved as I enjoyed reading and seeing this all unfold. Could have done without all the personal jabs though.

I do think it is Joe.

r/
Frank

[tbob]

Originally Posted by T's please

Brett,

I thoroughly enjoyed this thread when it started. You had many of the board members contributing and joining in to help you identify and support your theory. Others needed more than what was initially a speculation based on your initial post and picture. They weren't wrong, nor a fraud, they just needed more than what had been given up to that point.

Just because Mark didn't suddenly jump on the Jax wagon at the beginning didn't mean he was against your theory, he just needed more info. I think that people are coming around a little at a time based on the updated information. No need to slam people and make personal jabs because they didn't agree with you at the beginning.

Let it go, hold your head high knowing that you were right and move on.

Great job to all involved as I enjoyed reading and seeing this all unfold. Could have done without all the personal jabs though.

I do think it is Joe.

r/
Frank

Well said Frank.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Is the curve of his sock (where the pants end) much more pronounced in the newspaper photo though?

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Is the curve of his sock (where the pants end) much more pronounced in the newspaper photo though?

It's the angle Peter. Remember the photos were taken from two different angles as well as his right knee moved forward when Lord was reaching to make the tag.

[orator1]

This was an excellent thread until the condescension, arrogance, and name calling began...ala Marshall Barkman.

The only question now is ... who is going to to be bigger man and stop the back and forth bickering?

[brett]

Originally Posted by orator1

This was an excellent thread until the condescension, arrogance, and name calling began...ala Marshall Barkman.

The only question now is ... who is going to to be bigger man and stop the back and forth bickering?

I'm the bigger man! Just kidding... Stepping back from this I can see how you and others would feel the way you do and I apologize. Hopefully you'll remember my first post as a good one and not focus on the shenanigans that started between myself and a few others.

[Tcards-Please]

Originally Posted by orator1

The only question now is ... who is going to to be bigger man and stop the back and forth bickering?

The only question remaining is what is my PSA 4 worth?

[Abravefan11]

Thanks Mark. SCT brought up the fold in the pants in a post yesterday and asked if it could be outlined and I just got around to it while he was posting. Great observation on his part.