How Rare is the 1933 Goudey Napoleon Lajoie?

[Archive]

Posted By: GoHogs1091 

A few months ago on Ebay was a high grade SCG 1933 Goudey Lajoie for sale (I believe it sold for around $35,000). In the description, the seller stated that there were a little over 100 known examples of the 1933 Goudey Lajoie. Does anyone know how many known examples there are? I knew that the Lajoie was rare (I figured there were a couple hundred known examples), but if there is indeed a little over 100 known examples, the card is very much more rare than I realized.

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

PSA has graded 54 examples, and SGC has graded 7 examples. Not sure exactly what that represents (if anything), but it is a number, which helps provide information to the exercise. I think that there are probably much closer to 200 than 100. Though I am not sure if the actual number is close to 200 or much more.

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

edited

[Archive]

Posted By: jay berhens

I am sure a lot of them are in the hands of long time collectors who don't make a habit of submitting cards for grading. As time goes by, fewer and fewer of these cards will remain in the hands of old-timers and collectors that are against slabbing cards.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

With the possible exception of lower grade examples (Poor to VG), I don't think there's much argument that the 1933 Lajoie sells for more graded than ungraded (major grading companies only). In that sense, I think the R319 Lajoie is very much like the T206 Wagner. That is, the card is expensive enough so that the majority of existing copies are already "known to the hobby."

Now, that's not to say that some clandestinely-fixated collector doesn't have a stash of rare vintage cards out in the back woods somewhere. Certainly, discoveries of rare vintage cards are still made on a regular basis. But the popularity and value of the 1933 Goudey Napoleon Lajoie is such that I think we can put a rough figure on the number of examples that are known to our hobby...just like we can for the T206 Wagner.

All sarcasm aside, we can probably knock at least 10 off of the PSA population figures. Add that number to the other graded Lajoies and you've got roughly 50 total slabbed examples. Are there more than an additional 50 or 60 currently known examples of this card out there? Based on what I've seen and my hobby experience, I doubt it. I could be mistaken, but it's my belief that most veteran hobby collectors would be more comfortable with the figure "slightly over 100" than with "close to 200."

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

One big difference between the t206 Wagner and the Lajoie is that collectors had to actually mail off to get the Lajoie - that would indicate to me that they were serious about collecting the entire set and placed value on it even back in '34 (if only sentimental). Also, since in '34 Lajoie was more likely a hero to adults rather than children (my assumption since he was retired), it seems probable that many of these '33 sets belonged to adults and did not get thrown out by Mom, and there could very likely still be some of them stashed in cedar chests, etc. So as these centenarians pass away, expect these sets to begin flooding the market (humor).

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

I am sure that there is a fairly specific known number of uncut sheets out there with the Lajoie on it. I certainly have a ballpark idea in my mind -- and it seems like one of the sheets hits the auction circuit every 2-3 years. Does someone know the specific number known?

And it is known/thought that there is only one 1933 Goudey #106 Leo Durocher card, correct? ex-Halper, and sold once since.

[jdeagle]

I recently acquired 2 "1933 Goudey" cards - No. 106 Nap Lajoie and No. 144 Babe Ruth. Both are in poor condition, and while there are no visible signs they are reprints (e.g. the backs don't describe the history of the cards in red like the obvious reprints), I don't believe they are original. I can't seem to upload pictures because the file sizes are too large in any format.

Is there an obvious way to determine if the cards are original 1933?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by jdeagle

I recently acquired 2 "1933 Goudey" cards - No. 106 Nap Lajoie and No. 144 Babe Ruth. Both are in poor condition, and while there are no visible signs they are reprints (e.g. the backs don't describe the history of the cards in red like the obvious reprints), I don't believe they are original. I can't seem to upload pictures because the file sizes are too large in any format.

Is there an obvious way to determine if the cards are original 1933?

If you want to send them to me at leon@net54baseball.com I will resize and upload them for you. However, you have a better chance of winning the lottery than these being real.

[byrone]

OT question:

Why was Lajoie even in the set?

How many other retired players appeared in that issue?

[slipk1068]

I know there is an Eddie Collins.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Archive

Posted By: Marc S.

I am sure that there is a fairly specific known number of uncut sheets out there with the Lajoie on it. I certainly have a ballpark idea in my mind -- and it seems like one of the sheets hits the auction circuit every 2-3 years. Does someone know the specific number known?

And it is known/thought that there is only one 1933 Goudey #106 Leo Durocher card, correct? ex-Halper, and sold once since.

I know nothing about this set, so maybe this is a dumb question. Is this accurate, that there is only one Durocher card known?
And why would it have the same number as the Lajoie? Is it a misprint? Or a never produced proof?

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by slipk1068

I know there is an Eddie Collins.

you are thinking US caramel(32' issue).

[btcarfagno]

Wasn't there a card number that was skipped for some reason or other and people got all pissed off so Goudey decided to print the Lajoie with the missing number and give it away to those who asked for it? I think it was actually printed in 1934 if I am not mistaken.

Tom C

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

you are thinking US caramel(32' issue).

There is an Eddie Collins in the 1933 Goudey set as well. There are also other retired players, such as Tris Speaker.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

There is an Eddie Collins in the 1933 Goudey set as well. There are also other retired players, such as Tris Speaker.

oh yeah!!!!!

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Wasn't there a card number that was skipped for some reason or other and people got all pissed off so Goudey decided to print the Lajoie with the missing number and give it away to those who asked for it? I think it was actually printed in 1934 if I am not mistaken.

Tom C

Yes, #106 was intentionally left out by Goudey. Instead, they double printed card #144 of Babe Ruth. To fulfill requests, Goudey went back and printed a #106 (Lajoie) in late 1934.

All of the 1933 and 1934 Goudey sheets had consisted of 24 cards up to that point (6 across and 4 high). To accommodate the 1933 #106 Lajoie card, Goudey printed a 25 card (5 across and 5 high) sheet in 1934 which also included its high-numbered cards.

So, theoretically, just as many 1933 #106 Lajoie cards were produced as other 1934 Goudey high-numbered cards except that the they were not distributed in packs, instead they were pulled aside and given out to those who requested the missing #106 card from 1933.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

There is an Eddie Collins in the 1933 Goudey set as well. There are also other retired players, such as Tris Speaker.

Don't know how I forgot that...seeing as a 33 goudey collins was one of my first vintage cards I ever acquired as a kid!

[tedzan]

I do not understand why this card is referred to as a 1933 GOUDEY ?

It was printed with the 24 high #s in late 1934 at the Goudey factory.

Furthermore, card #106 was not the only missing card in the Spring of 1933 when that series of GOUDEY's were issued. There were 21
other low # cards** that were not issued till the Fall of 1933.

A nasty marketing trick by Goudey in the Spring of 1933 to keep collectors buying wax packs....looking for those missing card numbers.


Uncut 1934 GOUDEY high #'s sheet....includes the rare Lajoie (#106) card





Note
Card #'s 97, 98, 99, 128, 129, and 142 were printed on sheet #9.

Card #'s 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, and 127 were printed on the last sheet, #10.



TED Z
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________
LOOKING for this T206 guy to complete my " EXCLUSIVE 12 " red HINDU sub-set (12 subjects)

SHECKARD (glove)
.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by tedzan

I do not understand why this card is referred to as a 1933 GOUDEY ?

Probably because Lou Gehrig had nothing to say about him?

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by tedzan

I do not understand why this card is referred to as a 1933 GOUDEY ?

It was printed with the 24 high #s in late 1934 at the Goudey factory.

Furthermore, card #106 was not the only missing card in the Spring of 1933 when that series of GOUDEY's were issued. There were 21
other low # cards** that were not issued till the Fall of 1933.

A nasty marketing trick by Goudey in the Spring of 1933 to keep collectors buying wax packs....looking for those missing card numbers.


Uncut 1934 GOUDEY high #'s sheet....includes the rare Lajoie (#106) card





Note
Card #'s 97, 98, 99, 128, 129, and 142 were printed on sheet #9.

Card #'s 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, and 127 were printed on the last sheet, #10.



TED Z


__________________________________________________ ___________________________________
LOOKING for this T206 guy to complete my " EXCLUSIVE 12 " red HINDU sub-set (12 subjects)

SHECKARD (glove)
.

Ted,

Thank you for sharing that image, and the additional info.

Your breadth of knowledge about this hobby never ceases to amaze me.

Hope all is well.

Best regards,

Eric

[NonSportDaniel]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Probably because Lou Gehrig had nothing to say about him?

This is awesome.

[tedzan]

Thanks for the compliments.

I'm an avid set collector; and, I enjoyed completing two 1933 Goudey sets. In the process I learned a lot about the "nitty-gritty" of this classic set.


All is well here, 60 miles north of Philly....it's a Winter Wonderland.

How's the snow down your way ?


TED Z
.

[steve_a]

There is a sheet up for auction now at heritage. I was hoping to go see it in NY but that same snow made me pass.

http://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/19...a/7130-80107.s

[BBB]

Originally Posted by Sean

I know nothing about this set, so maybe this is a dumb question. Is this accurate, that there is only one Durocher card known?
And why would it have the same number as the Lajoie? Is it a misprint? Or a never produced proof?

The Durocher is legit. Don't think there is any info out there to explain its existence in a concrete fashion. My guess is this was a proof that Goudey had lined up and cut before production to create the marketing ploy. If the existence of this card could ever be nailed down to prove it was the cut card in the ploy, then it should be far more valuable than the lajoie.

Regardless this is a rare bird! Put it up there past the blue back ruth as the coolest oddity in Goudey history.

[Rollingstone206]

...

[RGold]

Too much time on my hands.

http://imageevent.com/rgold/1933goudeylajoie

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Rollingstone206

Just my opinion, I don't think its THAT impressive of a rarity compared to other '33 Goudeys just about 13 times harder to find than a #92 Gehrig and price roughly reflects that to the same proportion.

yet for some reason...they just don't come up for sale very often?!

[Spike]

I vaguely recall seeing the original photo for Goudey's Lajoie, probably linked in a prior Net54 thread. Anyone else remember that photo? (I believe it was a portrait that Goudey added "shirt and arms" to after-the-fact.)

[Rollingstone206]

...

[tedzan]

The final 24-card sheet in this GOUDEY set was printed and issued circa November 1933. The bios on the backs of these cards reflect the 1933 World Series.
I do not have a scan of this sheet, so here is my diagram of it which clearly shows 15 lower # cards included on it along with the final 9 cards of this set.

It certainly was a clever marketing trick by the Goudey Co. to issue these lower # cards at the end of the season, as it kept collectors** in the Spring of '33
buying Goudey packs looking for these cards. And at the same time, a mean trick to collectors of Goudey cards.


..



**....This fact was confirmed in 1981 by an older collector who remembered as a kid in the Spring/Summer of 1933 spending all his allowance searching for
cards #106 - 114, and 121 - 129.


TED Z
.

[philliesphan]

Originally Posted by Rollingstone206

PSA shows 82 graded #106 Napoleon Lajoie

Rather interesting looking at this longitudinally. (Since I am the aforementioned "Archive" in response #2 on this thread).

In 2003, there were 54 (PSA) and 7 (SGC) Lajoie cards graded. Today there are 82 (PSA) and 31 (SGC)

In twelve years, the population of this card graded has less than doubled, and that is not including any crack-outs or regrades.

Perhaps it goes to show that a good chunk of the Lajoie cards were professionally graded (largely by PSA) a very long time ago. Also interesting to note that over the last 12 years, SGC has graded almost as many Lajoies as PSA.

m

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by philliesphan

Perhaps it goes to show that a good chunk of the Lajoie cards were professionally graded (largely by PSA) a very long time ago. Also interesting to note that over the last 12 years, SGC has graded almost as many Lajoies as PSA.

Interesting thought, and it jives with another I had when I watched the Mastro Auctions video of the Lionel Carter collection. All his cards were graded through SGC, and he notes in the video that for this card, those who wrote in to Goudey to complain about the card missing were rewarded with "10", count'em 10 Lajoie's. He also mentions Jefferson Burdick got 10. May be common knowledge for those who have collected vintage longer than I, but I didn't see it referenced in this thread.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Interesting thought, and it jives with another I had when I watched the Mastro Auctions video of the Lionel Carter collection. All his cards were graded through SGC, and he notes in the video that for this card, those who wrote in to Goudey to complain about the card missing were rewarded with "10", count'em 10 Lajoie's. He also mentions Jefferson Burdick got 10. May be common knowledge for those who have collected vintage longer than I, but I didn't see it referenced in this thread.

I watched the video years ago...and remember the story that burdick had multiples of the lajoie and gave carter one...BUT...I had never heard that "everyone" that wrote in to Goudey received 10 Lajoies...is there any evidence to support this?

[toppcat]

Legendary auctioned the Durocher in July 2000. Here is the description:

"This unique 1933 Leo Durocher Goudey card has #106 on the reverse, which is the well known number of the famous and rare 1933 Napoleon Lajoie card in that set. This one-of-a-kind #106 Durocher card is otherwise identical in all respects to the actual #147 Durocher card in the 1933 Goudey set. This card originates from the collection of hobby pioneer Woody Gelman, who probably obtained it personally from a contact at Goudey. The card was most likely part of a proof run, with the card numbers later changed before being printed in production quantities. The apparent hand cut (as opposed to machine cut) of the card makes this theory all the more likely. Whatever the explanation, this card is certainly one of the most interesting and unique of all 1930's baseball cards. Ex-Halper Collection. Very Good condition."

Hammered at $13,112. No scan available.

[wolf441]

It's on page 339 of the Sotheby's Barry Halper Auction Catalog (The Early Years). Here's a scan...

[toppcat]

Nice plagiarism job by Legendary.

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Nice plagiarism job by Legendary.

I was thinking the same thing! Also veeeeery lenient grading by Sotheby's. "Very good condition", it looks like the top is about to break off...

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by wolf441

I was thinking the same thing! Also veeeeery lenient grading by Sotheby's. "Very good condition", it looks like the top is about to break off...

c'mon...look how sharp the corners are...psa would agree for sure.

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

c'mon...look how sharp the corners are...psa would agree for sure.

True. It's mint from the neck down....much like Durocher was an A-Hole from the neck up!

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by wolf441

true. It's mint from the neck down....much like durocher was an a-hole from the neck up! :d

good one!!!!!

[parkerj33]

Does anyone else recall (Ted ? ) that none other than Bill Heitman has attested on these very boards maybe 7-8 years ago that Durocher 106 was a custom made card printed by hobbyists. He was vague but seemed to indicate hobbyists had access to original plates or had "friends at the factory" print it for them. Seems to somewhat correlate to the idea that Woody had it made for him.

[tedzan]

My memory on this is not 100% certain; however, here is my input regarding this unusual "1933 Goudey" Durocher card. Circa 1982-83, I visited George Moll
at his home in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. George Moll was the genius behind Gum, Inc. Sports & Non-Sports cards (1938-1943). And, the Bowman Gum Co.
Sports & Non-Sports cards (1948-1955). Moll's Advertising Agency in Philadelphia (in conjunction with Warren Bowman) produced the above mentioned cards.

George Moll was a gracious gentleman in his 80's. He delighted in showing me his extensive collection of Sports cards (Play Ball's and Bowman's), uncut sheets,
sports posters, etc. Furthermore, he showed me some of his Non-Sports cards.....most notably the 1938 Horrors of War set. Then he pulled out an album which
contained high quality mylar sheets. Within those sheets was the most beautiful 1933 Goudey cards ever seen. I remember him telling me the 1933 Goudey set
was his favorite BB cards. He collected them when he was in his mid 30's.
Now, I do not recall if he had a Lajoie. I do recall him showing me the #106 Durocher card. It's my understanding that his Company printed this card in order to
fill a missing slot in this Goudey set. How many of these cards were printed is unknown.


TED Z
.

[barrysloate]

If my memory serves, Barry Halper had a #106 Durocher in his collection, and that it was part of his sale in 1999. I know I could look it up.

And I see it was mentioned in post #36. Oh well.

[parkerj33]

all, here is an archived thread from 2007, referring to the heitman claim:

Posted By: William Heitman

Back in the '50's, and even earlier than that, there was a group of hobby veterans who, in their spare time, liked to redo older sets of cards. They would make changes--like completely renumbering the 1933 Goudey set, or changing backs. They felt that these changes would make it obvious that these were reprints. Boy, were they wrong. Trouble is that they (many were affiliated to card producers, i.e. Topps, Bowman, Gum, Inc., etc) had access to vintage presses, inks and paper, and the ones they did turned out really good. I saw many of these when I was young and listened to my father laugh at just how good they were and just how stupid anyone would be to believe them to be real. "Strip" cards are not called that because they were printed on strips(which they very obviously were), but because they were originally sold to the public the very same way they were printed. Printing cards on sheets with multiple rows of cards was an advent of the '30's, the very same time that hobby veterans started to talk to each other and out of which grew this unusual idea of redoing old sets of cards. I've seen some of these cards surface over the years and cause a real stir in the hobby. A lot of it is wishful thinking. Unfortunately, a lot of the stir is the product of just plain lack of knowledge. The preferred method of storing cards that were collected until plastic sheets came along was in neat little rows in cardboard boxes(Velveta boxes were especially good). With that method of storage, after just a few years a fake looks just about as aged as a card that is ninety years old that was stored that same way. Reprints have been around for years and years. They weren't originally done to fool anyone, but, unfortunately, they do.

Post 76 in this thread:
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...eferrerid=4250

followup discussion in this thread
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...eferrerid=4250

[parkerj33]

Ted, I think George Moll could very well have been with the group that Bill H is referring to, or at least connected to them, to get his custom 106 made for him.

[Rich Klein]

The story I heard is that Woody Gelman created the Durocher card which would make sense since Don Lepore of Card Collectors Company was the one who found said card.

[toppcat]

Has anyone ever checked the Library of Congress to see if the Durocher was copyrighted along with the other 1933 cards?

The Woody Gelman connection is interesting-he is one of the few guys that would have been able to get a high quality card printed up.

[tedzan]

My recollection of George Moll's collection having a #106 Durocher (Post#43) can be verified by Rob Lifson.

Rob acquired Moll's collection circa 1985.


TED Z
.