1933 Goudey Gehrig Poses

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Can anyone tell me the reason why the two Gehrig cards in this set (92 and 160) are virtually identical? And what the differences are?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Here are the scans of both. I can't tell you why they used the same image. Lou Gehrig and Jimmy Foxx (29 and 154) are the only two with the same fronts on two cards. Some would argue the three Ruths are the same since they are of the same pose. The 144 is the main pose, and the 149 and the 53 are closeups with different color backgrounds. I can't think of any other player with the same fronts.<br /><br />As for differences, I can't see any. Here are the two cards. The background on one is light than the other, but I think that's just because of these two specific cards, not all 92/160s.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1139023730.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1139023747.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jim</b><p>I'm not an expert but I think most #92's are toned a bit darker than the #160.<br /><br />Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>There is essentially no difference. As you noted, the poses are the same<br />and the data on the backs are identical. However, there is a subtle, but<br />discernable difference in the blue background color. I have always been<br />able to identify which card # is on the back by looking at the front of<br />these two cards. The #160 Gehrig consistently has a lighter and softer-<br />looking shade of Blue than the #92 card. <br /><br />A possible explanation for this is that the higher numbered cards in the<br /> 1933 Goudey set are printed on higher quality cardboard than the lower<br /> numbers (which are printed on a coarser, lower quality cardboard).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1139024195.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1139024352.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>so then the two cards in the scan above are not an aberation. Come to think of it, the other ones I've seen have probably exhibited the same background dark/light thing. The two Foxx cards don't exhibit the same background difference. I think the 154 and 160 were on the same sheet, but the 29 and the 92 were on different sheets, so maybe that is why there is no diff in the Foxxs.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1139024753.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1139024772.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Good one Dennis! Thanks

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jim</b><p>Here is my #92 with the darker toning.<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1139025033.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Thanks for the responses. It seems strange for Goudey to print two cards so similar -- what would have been the motivation for young collectors to try to collect both when the fronts and backs are nearly identical -- and in the Foxx case -- totally identical?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>i too, find it strange to have 2 almost identical poses. my thought is that goudey planned to have 2 different poses for some of the big stars of the era(ruth,cronin,ott,terry,manusch,o'doul)and just got lazy/frugal (depression) with the foxx and gehrig and figured 100% of the buyers were kids and they didn't/wouldn't care. the 2nd cards of lesser players were all in the 33 series and as we know came out after the world series. 3 cronins & manusch.but why 2 very similar walbergs??? and what about lajoie as the missing #? and it looks like a '34 series not '33? also, why did the add disappear on the bottom of the cards in some sheets? we can only guess?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>PC</b><p>The "Big League" banner at the bottom of the lighter/brighter versions of the Gehrig and Foxx cards have a magenta tint, whereas the darker versions are more red/orange. Not sure if that is uniformly the case. (Also, the magenta shows up on the letter on Foxx's uniform.)<br /><br />I'm not familiar with the Goudey print runs, but I would guess that printing the same card with a different number was Goudey's way of double (or triple) printing certain cards. And with Ruth, Gehrig and Foxx being so popular, maybe Goudey printed more of them to increase the chances of getting one of them (on the theory that a happy customer is a repeat customer). <br /><br />Of course, that does not explain why the Walberg card appears twice. However, the Walberg cards are in fact two DIFFERENT cards. The one on the left has a blue sky, the image appears more in the forground, and the shoes are black. The one on the right has no sky, the image is more toward the background, and the shoes are clearly brown (not a lighter shade of black). Two similar, but different, cards, whereas Gehrig and Foxx are, to my eye, identical except for slight color variations.