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

packs · #1 06-30-2010, 11:13 PM

At least one of the photos in the T202 set was taken by Conlon. When his photos are re-printed the player's rights aren't bought to re-print the photo. The photographer's rights are. So if this were simply a photo of Jackson, and not a "card" of Jackson's, which would mean adding him to a side panel and making him a part of the set, then why would they have to buy the rights to use his name as an identifier for who appears in a photo?

I'm not saying Jackson wasn't a part of the T202 set because he wasn't a star, and I'm not disputing the fact that he most likely didn't sell the rights to his image for inclusion in a set. But I'm not so sure you would need his permission to list him as appearing in a photo. Unless of course, he doesn't appear in the photo.

For example, Harry Davis is pictured shaking hands with John McGraw in a center panel and is identified. However, he does not appear in the set. Are you saying they had to buy Davis' rights to identify him in a photo and then didn't print a card of his as well? Seems highly unlikely. The only logical conclusion in my mind is that the card does not depict Jackson.

nolemmings · #2 06-30-2010, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Are you saying they had to buy Davis' rights to identify him in a photo and then didn't print a card of his as well?

No, they already would have had the rights to/ permission of Harry Davis--he was in t206, as were Birdie Cree and Billy Sullivan, two others identified in the back caption but missing from the end panels. Joe Jackson, by contrast, does not appear to have ever lent his permission to ATC.

I do not follow your Conlon analogy. Conlon also took virtually all of the portrait shots used in the E254 Colgan set. Are you suggesting that Colgan needed only to buy Conlon's permission to crop and use these photos, and not the players? I very much doubt that.

packs · #3 07-01-2010, 12:00 AM

I have a question. The Fatima T200 cards were produced in the same factory, Factory 25 District 2 VA as the T206 cards and Jackson appears and is identified in the team photo. Did the same company that owned the rights to the T206, T205 and T202 sets also have the rights for the T200 set?

Abravefan11 · #4 07-01-2010, 12:17 AM

The T200 set was produced after the ATC break and at that time Fatima was a Liggett & Myers product.

Prior to that I believe all of the others were ATC issues. The more knowledgeable experts will correct me if I'm wrong.

nolemmings · #5 07-01-2010, 12:23 AM

There may also be a more simple explanation as to why Joe (if it is him) is not identified in the photo. The caption was focused on Lord, with the write-up on him and his history. Although the text might have been added in late 1911, the photo may have been selected for inclusion much earlier--we know that most of the photos for end panels were around in 1910 or earlier. If the center photo were picked at a time when Joe Jackson was still a relative unknown quantity--say the first month of his first full season in 1911, which incidentally, is when the game was played that is included in the newpaper, there would be even less reason to identify Jackson. It is possible that there was no notation of who the runner was, and that when the text was finalized later, no one bothered to identify him.

Abravefan11 · #6 07-01-2010, 12:33 AM

My argument against that would be that the photo Greg found that matches the center panel is from a game in July. By that time Joe wasn't an unknown and center panel photos are included in the set up to the World Series that year. It makes no sense to me not to mention Joe unless it was a contractual situation. I find it hard to believe that the photographer would have marked his notes as the photo taken being of Lord and not also included Joe Jackson.

nolemmings · #7 07-01-2010, 12:49 AM

The game in the photo that identifies Jackson was from May 5, 1911. The teams played 4 games around then, 4 at the end of June (into July 1) and 4 in September. Unless it came from the last four game set, the photo was taken before half-way through Joe's first season. Now if they waited until year end to go through all sorts of photos, then I see your point. But if they already had decided on Lord and that photo earlier, I can see where the captioner would not necessarily have had reason to go back and check on the identity of the baserunner.

EDITED TO CHANGE: the September series was only three games, not four

Abravefan11 · #8 07-01-2010, 12:56 AM

We may be talking about two different photos and center panels. I was referencing the photo that started this thread. Greg found the companion photo for "Lord Catches His Man" in a newspaper photo from July.

nolemmings · #9 07-01-2010, 01:10 AM

I see the confusion, as it appears Greg was mistaken, either that or retrosheet is in error. In post 243 Greg says he got the photo from the July 6, 1911 paper, but that must be a typo--he surely meant May 6. If you blow up the story that appears with the photo, you see how ChiSox pitcher Frank Lange baffled the Indians in that game, beating them 2-1. That matches with the retrosheet site for the game played May 5th-- the Indians 20th game of the season.
http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1911/VCLE01911.htm

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1940 Play Ball JOE DiMAGGIO Signed Card PSA/DNA	joedawolf	1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T	3	12-15-2009 09:30 AM
Shoeless Joe Jackson signed, or did Joe's wife sign for him?	tcrowntom	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	0	06-07-2009 10:30 AM
CAN SOMEONE HELP?---EBay: A seller has a 1915 Cracker Jack Ty Cobb & Shoeless Joe $4500+	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	44	11-16-2005 11:48 AM
A couple of nice Shoeless Joe Jackson PSA cards for sale!!!!!!	Archive	Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T	2	04-29-2005 03:12 PM
Shoeless Joe	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	7	02-04-2005 10:52 PM