Why was card #106 in 1933 Goudey Lajoie?

[insidethewrapper]

I was wondering if it was ever listed somewhere why card # 106 in the 1933 Goudey Set ( issued in 1934) was Lajoie, who's last season was 1916 ? Anyone know why he was picked to fill the previous years missing number versus Cobb etc ???

[Buythatcard]

Here are some facts about the Lajoie card.

https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com/seven-fun-facts-about-the-nap-lajoie-1933-goudey-card/

[insidethewrapper]

Thanks for the link to this article, but still why did they pick Lajoie is the mystery ?

[toppcat]

Thanks for the link to this article, but still why did they pick Lajoie is the mystery ?

On hand artwork?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Probably Mr. Goudey was a fan.

[petecld]

On hand artwork?

This is pure speculation. . .

I always wondered why Goudey would use Carl Hubbell in their “Sport Kings” series. Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth - understand loud and clear. If they wanted a third baseball player for that set, the long retired Nap Lajoie seems to me to be the better choice for a set called “Sport Kings.” Even the Lajoie pose is the same chest-high portrait style. For some reason Hubbell makes it onto card #42. Yes, Hubbell was good but he had only been pitching for five years and had yet to make history in the 1934 All-Star Game when the “Sport Kings” set was sold. Hardly worthy of royal status IMO.

I think the Lajoie artwork was created for the ’33 Sport Kings set but went unused. Why? For their 1933 sets, Goudey had three different versions of Hubbell created – his Sport Kings portrait and his two 1933 Goudey cards. Assuming they were all paid for, not using one is a waste of money and who would be the better sell? I would imagine the cost for the rights to use a current star over a long retired player was much more expensive so it makes sense to go with Hubbell to recoup costs. Plus, most kids in 1933 probably were not very familiar with the long retired Lajoie but would be familiar with current star Hubbell. Trust me, the sales dept. told them don’t waste the third Hubbell pose.

Forward to 1934 where Goudey is under the gun for a card #106 which “accidentally” was never printed. One option is to pay for artwork/usage rights for another player or, if my theory is correct they still had the Lajoie unused artwork that will now save Goudey by being both a quick fix and one that would not have cost them any extra money from their 1934 budget.

Again, just my theory.

[rats60]

This is pure speculation. . .

I always wondered why Goudey would use Carl Hubbell in their “Sport Kings” series. Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth - understand loud and clear. If they wanted a third baseball player for that set, the long retired Nap Lajoie seems to me to be the better choice for a set called “Sport Kings.” Even the Lajoie pose is the same chest-high portrait style. For some reason Hubbell makes it onto card #42. Yes, Hubbell was good but he had only been pitching for five years and had yet to make history in the 1934 All-Star Game when the “Sport Kings” set was sold. Hardly worthy of royal status IMO.

I think the Lajoie artwork was created for the ’33 Sport Kings set but went unused. Why? For their 1933 sets, Goudey had three different versions of Hubbell created – his Sport Kings portrait and his two 1933 Goudey cards. Assuming they were all paid for, not using one is a waste of money and who would be the better sell? I would imagine the cost for the rights to use a current star over a long retired player was much more expensive so it makes sense to go with Hubbell to recoup costs. Plus, most kids in 1933 probably were not very familiar with the long retired Lajoie but would be familiar with current star Hubbell. Trust me, the sales dept. told them don’t waste the third Hubbell pose.

Forward to 1934 where Goudey is under the gun for a card #106 which “accidentally” was never printed. One option is to pay for artwork/usage rights for another player or, if my theory is correct they still had the Lajoie unused artwork that will now save Goudey by being both a quick fix and one that would not have cost them any extra money from their 1934 budget.

Again, just my theory.

Carl Hubbell was the 1933 NL MVP and led the Giants to the World Series Championship winning 2 games and allowing 0 earned runs in 20 innings. The back of his card talks about his great 1933 season. It makes perfect sense why he would be in the set.

[ruth_rookie]

They should have gone with Gehrig. Can you imagine a ‘33 Sport Kings Gehrig? The trio of BB Titans. And one more Gehrig I could’ve added to my collection. Doesn’t get any better than that!

[Rhotchkiss]

No clue whether it has merit, but it was a great read and very solid theory.

Didn’t Lajoie make another post-career appearance in a 1940 or 1941 Playball set?

[brianp-beme]

Lajoie is in the 1940 Play Ball set, along with a slew of other long retired players.

Brian

[insidethewrapper]

Hard to believe that no one knew any of these people who made these decisions in these tobacco and candy companies. Someone must know who is still alive how these decisions were made or worked at these companies ( like American Tobacco, Goudey, Topps etc. Was all of this such a "top secret" ? Didn't anyone ever ask or wasn't some of this information passed down ?

[Spike]

I think the business decision of reusing available art makes sense for Lajoie, given Goudey's need to fill a single missing number by request of frustrated 1933 buyers. It could also be true Goudey planned to use Lajoie in Sports Kings, IF they'd printed a third series in late 1934 or early 1935. As a retired player, he made a better fit for that set of "legends," no doubt about it.

Consider that Sport Kings series #1-24 came out in 1933 and series #25-48 followed in 1934. While they never made a third series, they could well have prepped art for up to 24 more athletes. Hubbell's stardom in the 1933 World Series might've even bumped Lajoie himself from second series consideration. If there HAD been a #49-72 third series, Larry could've appeared there.

Since Goudey didn't make a third Sport Kings series, Lajoie's portrait might've been the only baseball player at hand for that missing #106. After all, Sports Kings #1-48 contained just three MLBers: Cobb, Ruth, and Hubbell. (Thorpe's shown as a footballer.)

I suspect Goudey scuttled further Sport Kings cards due to a steep drop in 1934 card revenue. According to Bob Lemke's blog post on the subject, Goudey's baseball card sales fell from $450K in 1933 to $220K in 1934. Falling card sales could also explain why Goudey sets after 1934 seem a lot less creative.

Either way, Goudey printed 1934's fourth baseball sheet as a 5x5 layout, plugged in the available Lajoie art, and then mailed out #106s on demand, one-by-one. That explanation for "why Lajoie" makes sense to me, given the relative set timings and money situation.

[Griffins]

Originally #106 was Durocher- the only copy was sold in the Copeland auction I believe.

[CW]

This is pure speculation. . .

I always wondered why Goudey would use Carl Hubbell in their “Sport Kings” series. Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth - understand loud and clear. If they wanted a third baseball player for that set, the long retired Nap Lajoie seems to me to be the better choice for a set called “Sport Kings.” Even the Lajoie pose is the same chest-high portrait style. For some reason Hubbell makes it onto card #42. Yes, Hubbell was good but he had only been pitching for five years and had yet to make history in the 1934 All-Star Game when the “Sport Kings” set was sold. Hardly worthy of royal status IMO.

I think the Lajoie artwork was created for the ’33 Sport Kings set but went unused. Why? For their 1933 sets, Goudey had three different versions of Hubbell created – his Sport Kings portrait and his two 1933 Goudey cards. Assuming they were all paid for, not using one is a waste of money and who would be the better sell? I would imagine the cost for the rights to use a current star over a long retired player was much more expensive so it makes sense to go with Hubbell to recoup costs. Plus, most kids in 1933 probably were not very familiar with the long retired Lajoie but would be familiar with current star Hubbell. Trust me, the sales dept. told them don’t waste the third Hubbell pose.

Forward to 1934 where Goudey is under the gun for a card #106 which “accidentally” was never printed. One option is to pay for artwork/usage rights for another player or, if my theory is correct they still had the Lajoie unused artwork that will now save Goudey by being both a quick fix and one that would not have cost them any extra money from their 1934 budget.

Again, just my theory.

Very interesting theory, Pete, and great insight into the Lajoie card.

I think you may have to make some leaps of faith to try to understand why Hubbell was included in the Sport Kings set and Lajoie was not. It might not have been an "either/or" scenario. Perhaps they had to shorten up the set and Lajoie simply didn't make the cut. We'll probably never know.

Hubbell's inclusion in the Sport Kings set is not much of a stretch when you look at some of the other athletes included in the set. Some of the selections were also in similar, fairly early stages of their careers. And not all of the athletes were titans of their sport like Ruth and Cobb. Some of the hockey selections, while being eventual HOFers, were not exactly what one would consider hockey royalty either.

However, I think it's very plausible that the artwork used on the '33 Goudey Lajoie #106 could very well have been intended for the Sport Kings set. The theory is so intriguing, I had to make a fantasy card based on it. What if? :cool:

https://i.imgur.com/LS69M2D.jpg

[jason.1969]

I don't have an answer for why Lajoie as opposed to a potentially bigger name retired star (Cy Young) or even a random active player who didn't make the cut in 1933. Another intriguing choice would have been Walter Johnson who was of course a HUGE name and also the Indians manager at the time.

What I can offer, though there is obviously speculation involved, is something I wrote up a couple days ago on the relationship among the Lajoie, Babe Ruth, Leo Durocher, and...Jack Russell. I presume many of you already know the relationship among the first three, but the fourth may be novel.

https://jasoncards.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/chasing-card-106-part-4/

Happy to see the topic of the 1933 set generating new discussion these days.

[jason.1969]

I suspect Goudey scuttled further Sport Kings cards due to a steep drop in 1934 card revenue. According to Bob Lemke's blog post on the subject, Goudey's baseball card sales fell from $450K in 1933 to $220K in 1934. Falling card sales could also explain why Goudey sets after 1934 seem a lot less creative.



I want to provide a counterpoint here. The 1934 set was 40% the size of the 1933 set. Meanwhile, revenue was nearly 50% that of the 1933 release. One read of that relationship is that Goudey's per card revenue in 1934 was actually higher than the year before. (And for various reasons it would make sense to think their per card costs were lower.)

My takeaway is that revenue was lower because the number of card was lower, not the other way around.

It's a bit speculative but my own research into the Goudey set has led me to believe the small 1934 offering was 1) a "topping off" of the 1933 series, and 2) at least in part smaller because brought much of it forward to 1933.

It's a long read, but I summarize a ton of my work in this post.

https://jasoncards.wordpress.com/2019/01/25/an-alternate-history-of-1933-goudey/

[jp1216]

https://twitter.com/keitholbermann/status/1080895848412794880

Keith Olbermann posted a pic of the Durocher #106 recently.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DwAdDTqWoAApvNY.jpg

[tedzan]

I'll preface all this good stuff presented here by first stating that my take on "why Lajoie ?" is elementary...…….
the GOUDEY GUM Co. was based in Boston....since 1901, Lajoie was a New England hero (native of Rhode Island)….and E. Gordon Goudey was a fan of his.

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1934Goudey25cardsheet25x.jpg





Hey guys, #106 was not the only "mysterious" card in the 1933 GOUDEY set. Here is an excerpt from a 1933 GOUDEY thread which illustrates the whole story...… http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=230037

Imagine you are in a Time Machine that transports you back to the Spring of 1933. Kids and older collectors were very excited with the new Goudey Gum cards.
You could get colorful cards of Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Jimmy Foxx, Dizzy Dean, etc. But, trying to put together a set of these cards became quite frustrating
because certain lower numbered cards were not available. By the end of the Summer of 1933 you diligently put together a set of 191 different subjects. Plus,
tons of duplicates as the result of spending lots of pennies trying to acquire the missing lower # cards (precisely 22 cards). In September Goudey issued their
9th sheet of cards (#s 214 - 231, and 97, 98, 99, 128, 129, 142). Finally, six of the mysterious lower numbered cards were available. So, 16 more to go.

That brings us to the World Series sheet. The 10th sheet was printed in mid October, the cards were issued in November 1933. The bios on the backs of them
reflect the 1933 World Series between the NY Giants and Washington. From my set, I have arranged these cards to exactly simulate this 24-card sheet..........


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/33Gx107x108x109xx12.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/33Gx110x111x112xx13.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/33Gx113x114x121xx12.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/33Gx122x123x124xx12.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/33Gx125x126x127xx12.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/33Gx232x233x234xx13.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/33Gx235x236x237xx12.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/33Gx238x239x240xx12.jpg


This diagram of the 10th sheet tells the story when the remaining 15 (of the 16) mysterious lower numbered cards where finally issued.


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1933Gsheet10arrange75x.jpg


And, of course #106 (Lajoie) was issued in the Summer of 1934 to finally complete this 240-card set.

T'was a clever marketing trick that Goudey played in order to sell a lot of cards in 1933......but, it was also a "mean" trick on the collectors.

This Show-n-Tell will hopefully spark some interesting discussion regarding this great Goudey set. Show us some your "oldies-but-goodies" Goudey's.


TED Z
.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[WWG]

Anyone here shell out the $264,000.00 for this beauty?

[ullmandds]

Anyone here shell out the $264,000.00 for this beauty?

better value than that PSA 9 Gehrig for twice the money...imo!

[nolemmings]

Originally #106 was Durocher- the only copy was sold in the Copeland auction I believe.

That was always my understanding also. However, if #106 was at one time supposed to be Durocher, who was going to be card #147--a different Durocher pose?

[petecld]

Very interesting theory, Pete, and great insight into the Lajoie card.

I think you may have to make some leaps of faith to try to understand why Hubbell was included in the Sport Kings set and Lajoie was not. It might not have been an "either/or" scenario. Perhaps they had to shorten up the set and Lajoie simply didn't make the cut. We'll probably never know.

Hubbell's inclusion in the Sport Kings set is not much of a stretch when you look at some of the other athletes included in the set. Some of the selections were also in similar, fairly early stages of their careers. And not all of the athletes were titans of their sport like Ruth and Cobb. Some of the hockey selections, while being eventual HOFers, were not exactly what one would consider hockey royalty either.

However, I think it's very plausible that the artwork used on the '33 Goudey Lajoie #106 could very well have been intended for the Sport Kings set. The theory is so intriguing, I had to make a fantasy card based on it. What if? :cool:

https://i.imgur.com/LS69M2D.jpg



That is awesome. Thank you CW.

Let's hope we don't see one on eBay as a "Proof"

Peter

[jason.1969]

That was always my understanding also. However, if #106 was at one time supposed to be Durocher, who was going to be card #147--a different Durocher pose?

I'll preface this by saying our entire discussion is largely speculative, so please don't mistake my response here for pretending to assert any authority.

The yellow cells below show the card numbers on 1933 Goudey Sheets 1-5. I believe the blue cells show the original (Durocher 106 stage) numbering of Sheet 6. (For reasons I won't go into right here, I believe the sheet was originally numbered to close out the 1933 release at 1-144.) For what it's worth, all six of the known (to me) 1933 "mis-numbered" proofs have numbers from these blue cells.

342407

I believe the decision to renumber the Sheet 6 cards (including Durocher 106 changing to 147) was made to extend the release, meaning the original plan for card 147 was "figure it out in 1934." However, if we imagine a scenario where Goudey retained the original Sheet 6 numbering but kept adding more cards in 1933 then I think just about any 1933 card not yet released would have been an equally likely candidate for slot 147. About the only exception I'll offer is Jack Russell since (I believe) he was originally on Sheet 6 (Durocher 106 phase) before being bumped for the Bambino 144 DP.

Again, highly speculative, but so is the entire discussion.

[PhillyFan1883]

Cool theory. Could be true. The thought they had the rights for the sports kings is interesting. I always wondered the same. I dont put too much into the Hubbel thought since he did have the big year before. Who knows. The uncut sheet that sold in Heritage years back with the Lajoie on it was an incredible piece to your whole point. I didnt notice for years the top of the card is 1934 Styled, but the bottom does not say “lou gehrig says”. See the Lajoie on the Uncut sheet is pretty cool. Still I wonder if they had Lajoie in mind before production. Everything points to no, but could Goudey really think they could skip a card and not have to answer to collectors? Always a great discussion.

[topcat61]

Lajoie was a late addition printing when collectors asked why they couldn't complete their sets, but inserting a (then) current player would have been a nightmare in terms of signing a contract and rights of publicity laws at that time. Having a retired player with roots to New England and not subject to those laws makes sense. Goudey obviously took a cue from the U.S. Caramel Co from Southie the previous year. If you think about it, those cards were being conceived in 1932 when the caramel cards were issued. I think George C. Miller followed suit but for different reasons than Goudey had.

[jason.1969]

Lajoie was a late addition printing when collectors asked why they couldn't complete their sets, but inserting a (then) current player would have been a nightmare in terms of signing a contract and rights of publicity laws at that time. Having a retired player with roots to New England and not subject to those laws makes sense. Goudey obviously took a cue from the U.S. Caramel Co from Southie the previous year. If you think about it, those cards were being conceived in 1932 when the caramel cards were issued. I think George C. Miller followed suit but for different reasons than Goudey had.This is intriguing to me, but I wonder if any new contracts would have been needed to clone any of the other 239 cards from the 1933 release and spank a number 106 on the back. The Gehrig and Foxx cards in the set show that cloning and renumbering were hardly anathema over there.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk

[Ricky]

Although the 1933 Goudey's were being conceived of in 1932, the decision to fill in #106 with Lajoie probably happened in early 1934, while the '34s were being designed. So, theoretically, signing up players to appear in the 1934 set was underway, which means that a current player, maybe one who hadn't appeared in 1933, could have been used because contracts would already have been in hand.

[rats60]

Lajoie was a late addition printing when collectors asked why they couldn't complete their sets, but inserting a (then) current player would have been a nightmare in terms of signing a contract and rights of publicity laws at that time. Having a retired player with roots to New England and not subject to those laws makes sense. Goudey obviously took a cue from the U.S. Caramel Co from Southie the previous year. If you think about it, those cards were being conceived in 1932 when the caramel cards were issued. I think George C. Miller followed suit but for different reasons than Goudey had.

They could have done a player who they signed for 1934 that wasn't in the 1933 set like Hank Greenberg or Luke Appling.

[insidethewrapper]

Maybe Lajoie was bumped from the 1933 Sports King Set( only 3 baseball players) and they used that photo for the 1934 #106 replacement card.

[jason.1969]

I'm not sure where I sit on the idea that the Lajoie was originally intended for the Sport Kings set, other than we'll probably never know this sort of thing.

However, let's pretend it's true. Here are some bits and pieces that might provide context.

First series of Sport Kings set probably issued in very late 1933, hence probably planned in Summer/Fall 1933. This included the Ruth and Cobb cards. In a set that would feature three baseball HOFers, I can't imagine anyone would question their inclusion as kings of their sport.

Let's pretend for a minute that the high number series at least initially was to include Lajoie. Personally I'd find him an odd choice for the third of three baseball players regardless of his New England roots. I would see at minimum Wagner, Young, or Johnson as more popular and celebrated. (Still, let's go with it.)

But then Carl Hubbell finishes an incredible 1933 season capped by a dominant World Series. His 1933 was so amazing that the back of his Sport Kings card leads with the line: "Rated as the outstanding performer of the sports world for 1933." Damn, how does Goudey NOT find a spot for Hubbell in the set? No doubt kids want Hubbell more than Lajoie.

Okay, move over, Napoleon. We need your spot for King Carl. And now there's a leftover Lajoie card ready for whatever occasion calls for it.

Note that this high number series was not issued before February 1934, so there was plenty of time to make a swap such as this. And note further that the Lajoie wasn't printed as a 1933 Goudey card until late 1934, so the timing works out on that side also.

I mentioned at the beginning that the inclusion of Lajoie as the third Sports King would have perplexed me. That said, the exact logic I'd employ to rule him out of Sport Kings would seemingly rule him out from card 106, so what do I know?

[tedzan]

To me...."it's elementary my dear Watson"....on why Hubbell , instead of Lajoie, in GOUDEY's SPORTS KING set. GOUDEY chose the two big hitters,
and they threw in (excuse the pun) a pitcher.
And, as you know, Carl Hubbell was the man of the year in 1933. Plus, he followed it up with 4 more consecutive years with 20+ victories per year.

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1933SportKingsHubbell33G.jpg



What isn't elementary to me is GOUDEY modifying their printing standard format (1933 and 1934) of 24-card sheets to a 25-card sheet to include
Lajoie in the 1934 GOUDEY high #'s press run.

Any thoughts on that ?


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1934Goudey25cardsheet25x.jpg



TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[insidethewrapper]

Was Lajoie #106 printed in the same quantities as the 1934 Goudey High #'s (73-96) ? Did any ever show up in 1934 Packs ?

[tedzan]

Was Lajoie #106 printed in the same quantities as the 1934 Goudey High #'s (73-96) ? Did any ever show up in 1934 Packs ?


Mike

Of course, Lajoie printed in the same quantities as the 1934 GOUDEY High #'s (73-96).

However, the Lajoie card was never included in the 1934 GOUDEY packs. The GOUDEY Co. held them, then
dispersed them upon requests from collectors.

So, somewhere there may be stacks and stacks of #106 Lajoie cards which have never seen the light of day.


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1934Goudey25cardsheet25x.jpg



TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[jason.1969]

Mike



Of course, Lajoie printed in the same quantities as the 1934 GOUDEY High #'s (73-96).



However, the Lajoie card was never included in the 1934 GOUDEY packs. The GOUDEY Co. held them, then

dispersed them upon requests from collectors.



So, somewhere there may be stacks and stacks of #106 Lajoie cards which have never seen the light of day.





http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1934Goudey25cardsheet25x.jpg







TED Z



T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)

.This would actually surprise me very much. I would sooner expect the high series to have principally been on sheets of 24 with the 5x5 layout the exception rather than the rule.

Can you even imagine printing 200,000+ of the 5x5 sheets, only to have to pull the Lajoie 200,000+ times to put in a different pile? This would be a major amount of work!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk

[tedzan]

Let's play the numbers game.....here are some samples from the Hi # series to consider...………

PSA + SGC pop report data:

126.....LaJoie

255.....Cuyler

228.....Camilli

227.....DeShong

208.....Derringer

203.....Mooney

197.....Trosky

196.....Darrow

194.....Werber

185.....Vosmik


These numbers indicate that a fair number of Lajoie cards were mailed out to collectors with respect to cards
collectors pulled from wax-packs.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[tedzan]

This would actually surprise me very much. I would sooner expect the high series to have principally been on sheets of 24 with the 5x5 layout the exception rather than the rule.

Can you even imagine printing 200,000+ of the 5x5 sheets, only to have to pull the Lajoie 200,000+ times to put in a different pile? This would be a major amount of work!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk


Hi Jason


I originally considered what you are suggesting; so, I don't really differ with you. However, given the fact that all 10 sheets in the 1933 GOUDEY set exist.
And, 4 sheets of the 1934 GOUDEY set exist. I have given up any thoughts of a 5th sheet of which just 24 Hi #s were printed, since it has never surfaced.

I have collected uncut sheets of various sets [GOUDEY's, PLAY BALL's, W514, W560, BOWMAN's (BB & FB 1948-1952), TOPP's (1952-1984), FLEER's (1959
to 1961), etc., etc.] since the 1970's....so, I would have come across such a 24-card Hi # sheet if it was printed.


I cannot find my photos of the first two sheets, but here are the last two printed sheets of the set.

3rd sheet (#49 - 72)

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1934GehrigSheet50x.jpg




Hi #s series (#73 - 96 + Lajoie)

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1934Goudey25cardsheet25x.jpg


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[jason.1969]

If we've more or less exhausted the original Lajoie question, another "mystery" of the 1934 Goudey set is why there was no Babe Ruth.

I collected various theories in a longer post. Feel free to read/comment, or skip my post and just posit your own theory right here.

https://jasoncards.wordpress.com/2019/02/04/the-case-of-the-missing-babe-ruth/