Between '34 Goudey and '49 Leaf

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Hey Guys,

I'm going to start pursuing another color Baseball card set. Between the '34 Goudey and the '49 Leaf what is the best looking and most collectible color Baseball card set. Any ideas. Thanks in advance for your opinions.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

1934 Goudey is more colorful than 1949 Leaf, although collectors do like the crudeness of the Leaf artwork. But the Leaf set is murder to complete. Once you get past the two Gehrigs in the Goudey set, you shouldn't have too much trouble, even with the high numbers. But half the Leaf set is short printed and those cards can be really tough.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

I agree with Barry. I completed the '34 Goudey set in months, the Leaf set is an ongoing work, now going on 5 years. The short prints are brutal, the variations are tricky, and once you start going after the color vartiations you know you need professional help.
'49 Leaf is one of my all time favorite sets, but I would never call it good looking. '34 Goudey is very good looking, and #37 Gehrig is one of my all time favorite cards.
If you want a bit of challenge with the '34's go after the premiums and the Knot Hole league stuff. That makes for a really cool display.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

PETER

In the current issue of the OLD CARDBOARD magazine, I have written an 8-page article
on the 1949 LEAF BB set. You'll find it very interesting and it might help you make the
correct decision.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

If ease of completion is no object I think the Leaf has better player selection and some significant rarities as well. After all, it has Ruth (if only a tribute card), DiMaggio, Robinson, Feller, Paige, Williams, Musial and that's just the beginning. I don't think 34 Goudey even approaches it in that aspect.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

1933 Goudey.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

If the meaning of your inquiry is to identify a set between 1934 and 1949, the best source for you to get an overview of this subject is to select the Old Cardboard link at the top of the main page, and once you arrive there, choose R-cards.

That will reveal most sets with that chronology.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Guys,

Thanks for the advice. I'm leaning towards the '49 Leaf because it has a Ruth card. But I'm going to do a little more research before I make up my mind. Thanks for the reference to Old Cardboard.

PETER

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

PETER

Both sets have the same number of cards (96 vs 98 + 3 vars.).

The Goudey has 24 tougher Hi# cards......while the Leaf has 49 extremely tough so-
called "single-prints" (SP).

It took me 12 years to acquire thesE SP cards. In the meantime I completed two 1933
Goudey sets and a 1934 Goudey set.

As a long term investment....this post war set (Leaf) has far out-weighed the value of
the pre-war set (1934 Goudey). This is very unusual, though.

Just some additional bits of info for you from someone.....who has collected both sets.

T-Rex TED

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

They're both classic sets. Can't go wrong picking either one. The Goudeys are better looking, but the Leaf set is probably tougher. The Leaf has some great rookies which will always be in demand. The Satchell Paige ranks as probably the rarest Post-WWII standard issue rookie card. That the Leaf has the 'old timers' Ruth, Wagner and DiMaggio is a nice touch.

What you can do is focus on one set, but, when good deals pop up, pick up cards from the other set.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Ted and guys,

Actually, if you can't beat them it's better to join them. I've decided to go after the '33 Goudey since Beckett's has decided that half the cards are rookies. Since I only have the Ott with bat on shoulder, I have a long way to go. Actually the reason I decided on the set is that it has both vintage Ruths and vintage Gehrigs. Also, it does not have the outrageously expensive Satchel Paige. Although I like the '34 Goudey, having Gehrig on 3/4 of the cards is too repetitious. Plus the fact that there's no Ruth. By the way does anybody know why Ruth wasn't included in the '34 Goudey.
My guess is that there was significant animosity between Gehrig and Ruth at the time.
So maybe Ruth didn't want to be in a set headlined by Gehrig. It is only speculation but it is an educated guess.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Peter,
Good choice. Other than the overly expensive Lajoie, the Goudey is a good collector's set as most cards are in fair supply, and are easy on the eyes.

If you're new to the game, realize that there are numerous reprints and fakes of the 1933 Goudeys, in particular the Ruths. It's always safe to buy a Ruth graded by reputable company.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Dont base your decision on beckett deciding half the cards are RC. we all know that beckett doesnt include anything other then "mainstream" sets as RC. whats mainstream? about the three different pre war sets they price in their magazine.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Perhaps it is unfortunate, but Beckett's heavily influences the hobby simply by listing certain card sets and not listing others. They do the same by listing some cards as rookie cards and not others.

Peter