W514 Jackson

[Caramelcollector]

I have a question that seems to get mixed responses. Is the W514 Joe Jackson considered a playing days card? Thanks for any input.

[ullmandds]

it IS a playing days card!!!!! Since there are so few JJ cards even this lowly strip is now out of reach for most. I wish I picked one up when they were cheaper!!!

[brianp-beme]

The W514 set is considered to have been released 1920-21, and Joe Jackson played the full 1920 season, so I believe most would consider his W514 card to be issued during his playing career.

Brian

[Moonlight Graham]

The W514 Shoeless Joe is among my top 3 favorite cards-I love everything about it!!!

Joe K.

[Caramelcollector]

Thanks for the input guys. I agree that the card is a playing days card too. Just curious what others thought.

[petecld]

Interesting post. I have always liked strip cards. I have never questioned this card being issued during his playing days. As has been mentioned, Jackson played in 1920 so even if the "1919" date is wrong it wouldn't change anything. I haven't checked all of them, but didn't all eight Black Sox play in 1920?

To those who feel this is NOT a career card of Jackson, curious to hear your reasoning. Also, why is the 1919 date for this set in question?

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by petecld

Interesting post. I have always liked strip cards. I have never questioned this card being issued during his playing days. As has been mentioned, Jackson played in 1920 so even if the "1919" date is wrong it wouldn't change anything. I haven't checked all of them, but didn't all eight Black Sox play in 1920?

To those who feel this is NOT a career card of Jackson, curious to hear your reasoning. Also, why is the 1919 date for this set in question?

I believe one of the main reasons is that Babe Ruth was acquired by the Yankees (the team designation on his card) on December 26, 1919. I had always seen the set identified as a 1919-21 issue in the past, but when you have such a major player that indicates 1920 as the likely earliest issue date, the newer time range is probably more readily accepted.

Brian

[Caramelcollector]

I agree with that Brian. 1920 is likely the year of issue for the set. What evidence do we have that these were issued in 1921 as well?
Jake

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Caramelcollector

I agree with that Brian. 1920 is likely the year of issue for the set. What evidence do we have that these were issued in 1921 as well?
Jake

Without checking into it, I would assume it was considered to be a 1921 issue as well due to the four or so players that have team designation variations available.

Brian