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

[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]

.

[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...

[Abravefan11]

Brett concerning the ankle wrap it's already been pointed out that several other players in the same photo are wearing one as well. As much as I would like for this to be some type of definitive proof that the T202 was Joe it's not.

[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.

[brett]

Originally Posted by botn

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.

It IS proven that the picture is from 1911. Forget about when Shoeless Joe played because Harry Lord (the Chicago 3rd baseman) didn't play a full season in Chicago until 1911 after being traded from Boston and the only games HE played against Cleveland in 1910 were in Chicago. This picture was taken in Cleveland meaning that it HAD TO BE from 1911. Another reason that it's more than likely Joe Jackson.