Where is Ruth?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

1933 was a great year for cards. You had Goudey's, Delong's, George C Miller's and other sets. The one thing that struck me funny today at work is that the only set Ruth is in, is the Goudey set. Is there a reason why Ruth was left out of the other sets? It just seems odd that they would omit the most popular player of the day.

Jay

A good friend will come bail you out of jail. A true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn, that was fun."

[Archive]

Posted By: jerry

Interesting question.
Maybe the other issues thought he was going to Retire. Goudey had retired players in their set ala Speaker & Collins, so they probally didn't care.
Just a guess.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

Always wondered about the Diamond Stars in '34, but Babe was in the Uncle Jacks and Buttercream sets--as well as those ugly Rittenhouses.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

I always thought it had something to do with contractual agreements.

[Archive]

Posted By: steve f

Not an ideal role model?.. Wondering if the prolific rumors of venereal disease and blatant infidelity may have hurt Georgie's standing with some of the Puritanical publishers.

The 1928 W565's for example, Murderer's Row without the Babe?.. Lazzeri and Gehrig were featured and the Babe hit his 60 dingers the season prior!

This day an age, a player with a deviant lifestyle wouldn't be a big whoop so long as his numbers were substantial.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I'm really surprised at the lack of comment on this topic. I would have thought there would be more action on this topic, but I guess no one really cares. Maybe I should ask why Ruth isn't in the t206 set :-p

Jay

A good friend will come bail you out of jail. A true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn, that was fun."

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Jay

You could probably answer your ? yourself. Anyhow, I will take a stab at it.

The "dudes" that produced the National Chicle (Diamond Stars, etc.) cards
were former Goudey employees that for whatever reasons branched out on
their own to form this new BB card Co.

So, it does not take much imagination to visualize the contention between
Goudey and these "upstarts". Of course that had to be legal battles to the
Rights to portray these two most heralded players of that time period.
And, it's very simple.....Goudey won.

Furthermore, Nat. Chi. must of won the argument on who would portray Hank
Greenberg (the most significant guy in the Dia. Star set). And, they initially
did not even spell Hank's name correctly.

Also, consider this fact, Nat. Chi. advertised a 240-player set to compete with
the 1933 Goudey set. However, they fell far short of it with only 96 players and
an additional 12 cards which were reprinted players from the earlier series.

Don't misconstrue me, though, I really enjoyed putting together the Dia. Star set.
I just loved the "art-deco" artistry that went into creating these cards.

T-Rex TED

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

The National Chicle 1934-36 Batter Up set had the same line up - no Ruth, yes - Greenberg, Hornsby, etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Thanks Gil

The Batter-Up roster of major stars more or less is consistent with the Dia. Star
set and does reinforce my above comments to Jay's question. Additionally, Nat.
Chicle included many players that were not depicted in the Goudey sets in their
Batter-Up set to produce a much larger set than their Dia. Star one.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Ted, I can make a pretty ggod educated guess, but it's an area that when I was very active in the hobby in the 80s that I generally ignored. I was hoping that hobby vets like you and others with more specific knowledge would be ab;e to give a more solid answer than what my theories are. Thanks

Jay

A good friend will come bail you out of jail. A true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn, that was fun."

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lowe

I am surely not a veteran . Might be an over simplification . But I always thought that it was because he fell in between the tobacco card and gum card eras .



Jeff

[Archive]

Posted By: MikeW

Steve f - I think Babe would be less celebrated today with his lifestyle the way it was. Obviously, he was well loved and celebrated in his day despite it. Conversely, big numbers haven't masked the tarnishing of Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, and Palmeiro's image today.

I know steroids and drinking/womanizing are different issues - but players displaying questionable moral decisions didn't seem to receive much scrutiny as long as they were productive (or better yet productive and gregarious).

[Archive]

Posted By: prewarsports

The 1930's and 1940's were a time when most Americans did not even know their President couldn't walk because the media did not make big deals out of things the way they do now. Most adults knew of Ruth's vices, but they usually did not inform their kids, and most kids did not read the papers. In the days before the media cared to try and dig up dirt, or before every kid had access to television news or Sportscenter, I think a much larger percentage of people and especially kids, simply did not know about Ruth's off the field lifestyle.

It would seem to flow then that Ruth's bad moral character would not have anything to do with his exclusion from card sets.

Rhys