View Full Version : Why is Ruth Missing from '34 Goudey
Archive
11-27-2006, 03:55 PM
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Guys,<br /><br />Maybe I have too much time on my hands. But Goudey must have tried to get Ruth into '34 Goudey set. What happened. Why is there no Ruth in the '34 Goudey set. Thanks in advance for any helpful information.<br /><br />Peter
Archive
11-27-2006, 03:59 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>Sheer speculation, but perhaps given the prominence given to Lou Gehrig in the set he didn't want to be included?
Archive
11-27-2006, 04:05 PM
Posted By: <b>steve f</b><p>No firm answer, though there was a '34 Goudey Ruth premium. But another question... 1934-36 Diamond Stars minus Lou and the Babe. Why?
Archive
11-27-2006, 04:43 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>The story I heard a long time ago was that the people behind the Dia. Star set were<br />"spin-offs" from the Goudey Gum Co. that went to the National Chicle Co. and wanted to<br /> produce a competing set. Goudey 1st acquired the "rights" to portray Ruth & Gehrig in<br />their BB set and that prevented Nat. Chicle from portraying them. However, Nat. Chicle<br />did get the rights to portray Dickey, Foxx, Greenberg, Ott and other major stars in their<br /> Dia. Star set, that are also in the 1933 Goudey set.<br /><br />And, if you will notice most other players between these 2 sets, are very comparable.<br /><br />T-Rex TED
Archive
11-27-2006, 05:17 PM
Posted By: <b>Josh Adams</b><p>There is a Ruth in the '34 Set, although it's one of those 4 player cards. <br><br>Go Go White Sox<br />2005 World Series Champions!
Archive
11-27-2006, 05:18 PM
Posted By: <b>Griffin's</b><p>Josh, that would be the '35 Goudey set.
Archive
11-28-2006, 04:44 AM
Posted By: <b>John Spencer</b><p>The story I heard goes something like this: While when appearing in public together, Ruth and Gehrig always appeared to be best of friends, but the reality was somewhat different. Gehrig apparently didn't approve of Ruth's flamboyant life style while Ruth often would comment that Gehrig was a "mama's boy". Undoubtedly, professional jealousy would have featured somewhere in here. The situation reached such a point they were not speaking to each other. It is only my conjecture but I suspect that the 4 different poses of Ruth in the '33 Goudey set compared to the same pose on 2 cards for him didn't please Gehrig too much, so when he played such a prominent role in the '34 Goudey set he might have been able to influence Goudey to leave Ruth out altogether or he wouldn't participate at all. Since Ruth's star was fading and Gehrig was still playing terrific ball, I can see why Goudey might have been influenced. Just a story but I like it.
Archive
11-28-2006, 04:54 AM
Posted By: <b>Bob Donaldson</b><p>I would think not including Ruth, especially after having four of his cards the previous year, would be a smart marketing ploy. Kids would keep buying cards trying to find a card of Babe Ruth. That's how I ended up with about 2000 1971 Topps BB cards at age nine. I never realized that Yaz was in the 5th series which never made it to Arlington!
Archive
11-28-2006, 05:48 AM
Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Probably for the same reasons that Gum, Inc. didn't include him with the retired stars in their '39 set (whatever they were). Not to hijack the thread, but why no Cobb, Ruth, Gehrig, Collins, Walsh, when Earnshaw and Herzog are in?
Archive
11-28-2006, 09:31 AM
Posted By: <b>Harry Wallace (HW)</b><p>Also, whey is Gehrig not in the 1935, 1936, or 1938 Goudey sets?