Why was card #106 in 1933 Goudey Lajoie?

[petecld]

Originally Posted by toppcat

On hand artwork?

This is pure speculation. . .

I always wondered why Goudey would use Carl Hubbell in their “Sport Kings” series. Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth - understand loud and clear. If they wanted a third baseball player for that set, the long retired Nap Lajoie seems to me to be the better choice for a set called “Sport Kings.” Even the Lajoie pose is the same chest-high portrait style. For some reason Hubbell makes it onto card #42. Yes, Hubbell was good but he had only been pitching for five years and had yet to make history in the 1934 All-Star Game when the “Sport Kings” set was sold. Hardly worthy of royal status IMO.

I think the Lajoie artwork was created for the ’33 Sport Kings set but went unused. Why? For their 1933 sets, Goudey had three different versions of Hubbell created – his Sport Kings portrait and his two 1933 Goudey cards. Assuming they were all paid for, not using one is a waste of money and who would be the better sell? I would imagine the cost for the rights to use a current star over a long retired player was much more expensive so it makes sense to go with Hubbell to recoup costs. Plus, most kids in 1933 probably were not very familiar with the long retired Lajoie but would be familiar with current star Hubbell. Trust me, the sales dept. told them don’t waste the third Hubbell pose.

Forward to 1934 where Goudey is under the gun for a card #106 which “accidentally” was never printed. One option is to pay for artwork/usage rights for another player or, if my theory is correct they still had the Lajoie unused artwork that will now save Goudey by being both a quick fix and one that would not have cost them any extra money from their 1934 budget.

Again, just my theory.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by petecld

This is pure speculation. . .

I always wondered why Goudey would use Carl Hubbell in their “Sport Kings” series. Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth - understand loud and clear. If they wanted a third baseball player for that set, the long retired Nap Lajoie seems to me to be the better choice for a set called “Sport Kings.” Even the Lajoie pose is the same chest-high portrait style. For some reason Hubbell makes it onto card #42. Yes, Hubbell was good but he had only been pitching for five years and had yet to make history in the 1934 All-Star Game when the “Sport Kings” set was sold. Hardly worthy of royal status IMO.

I think the Lajoie artwork was created for the ’33 Sport Kings set but went unused. Why? For their 1933 sets, Goudey had three different versions of Hubbell created – his Sport Kings portrait and his two 1933 Goudey cards. Assuming they were all paid for, not using one is a waste of money and who would be the better sell? I would imagine the cost for the rights to use a current star over a long retired player was much more expensive so it makes sense to go with Hubbell to recoup costs. Plus, most kids in 1933 probably were not very familiar with the long retired Lajoie but would be familiar with current star Hubbell. Trust me, the sales dept. told them don’t waste the third Hubbell pose.

Forward to 1934 where Goudey is under the gun for a card #106 which “accidentally” was never printed. One option is to pay for artwork/usage rights for another player or, if my theory is correct they still had the Lajoie unused artwork that will now save Goudey by being both a quick fix and one that would not have cost them any extra money from their 1934 budget.

Again, just my theory.

Carl Hubbell was the 1933 NL MVP and led the Giants to the World Series Championship winning 2 games and allowing 0 earned runs in 20 innings. The back of his card talks about his great 1933 season. It makes perfect sense why he would be in the set.

[ruth_rookie]

They should have gone with Gehrig. Can you imagine a ‘33 Sport Kings Gehrig? The trio of BB Titans. And one more Gehrig I could’ve added to my collection. Doesn’t get any better than that!

[Rhotchkiss]

No clue whether it has merit, but it was a great read and very solid theory.

Didn’t Lajoie make another post-career appearance in a 1940 or 1941 Playball set?

[brianp-beme]

Lajoie is in the 1940 Play Ball set, along with a slew of other long retired players.

Brian

[insidethewrapper]

Hard to believe that no one knew any of these people who made these decisions in these tobacco and candy companies. Someone must know who is still alive how these decisions were made or worked at these companies ( like American Tobacco, Goudey, Topps etc. Was all of this such a "top secret" ? Didn't anyone ever ask or wasn't some of this information passed down ?

[Spike]

I think the business decision of reusing available art makes sense for Lajoie, given Goudey's need to fill a single missing number by request of frustrated 1933 buyers. It could also be true Goudey planned to use Lajoie in Sports Kings, IF they'd printed a third series in late 1934 or early 1935. As a retired player, he made a better fit for that set of "legends," no doubt about it.

Consider that Sport Kings series #1-24 came out in 1933 and series #25-48 followed in 1934. While they never made a third series, they could well have prepped art for up to 24 more athletes. Hubbell's stardom in the 1933 World Series might've even bumped Lajoie himself from second series consideration. If there HAD been a #49-72 third series, Larry could've appeared there.

Since Goudey didn't make a third Sport Kings series, Lajoie's portrait might've been the only baseball player at hand for that missing #106. After all, Sports Kings #1-48 contained just three MLBers: Cobb, Ruth, and Hubbell. (Thorpe's shown as a footballer.)

I suspect Goudey scuttled further Sport Kings cards due to a steep drop in 1934 card revenue. According to Bob Lemke's blog post on the subject, Goudey's baseball card sales fell from $450K in 1933 to $220K in 1934. Falling card sales could also explain why Goudey sets after 1934 seem a lot less creative.

Either way, Goudey printed 1934's fourth baseball sheet as a 5x5 layout, plugged in the available Lajoie art, and then mailed out #106s on demand, one-by-one. That explanation for "why Lajoie" makes sense to me, given the relative set timings and money situation.

[jason.1969]

I don't have an answer for why Lajoie as opposed to a potentially bigger name retired star (Cy Young) or even a random active player who didn't make the cut in 1933. Another intriguing choice would have been Walter Johnson who was of course a HUGE name and also the Indians manager at the time.

What I can offer, though there is obviously speculation involved, is something I wrote up a couple days ago on the relationship among the Lajoie, Babe Ruth, Leo Durocher, and...Jack Russell. I presume many of you already know the relationship among the first three, but the fourth may be novel.

https://jasoncards.wordpress.com/201...rd-106-part-4/

Happy to see the topic of the 1933 set generating new discussion these days.

[CW]

Originally Posted by petecld

This is pure speculation. . .

I always wondered why Goudey would use Carl Hubbell in their “Sport Kings” series. Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth - understand loud and clear. If they wanted a third baseball player for that set, the long retired Nap Lajoie seems to me to be the better choice for a set called “Sport Kings.” Even the Lajoie pose is the same chest-high portrait style. For some reason Hubbell makes it onto card #42. Yes, Hubbell was good but he had only been pitching for five years and had yet to make history in the 1934 All-Star Game when the “Sport Kings” set was sold. Hardly worthy of royal status IMO.

I think the Lajoie artwork was created for the ’33 Sport Kings set but went unused. Why? For their 1933 sets, Goudey had three different versions of Hubbell created – his Sport Kings portrait and his two 1933 Goudey cards. Assuming they were all paid for, not using one is a waste of money and who would be the better sell? I would imagine the cost for the rights to use a current star over a long retired player was much more expensive so it makes sense to go with Hubbell to recoup costs. Plus, most kids in 1933 probably were not very familiar with the long retired Lajoie but would be familiar with current star Hubbell. Trust me, the sales dept. told them don’t waste the third Hubbell pose.

Forward to 1934 where Goudey is under the gun for a card #106 which “accidentally” was never printed. One option is to pay for artwork/usage rights for another player or, if my theory is correct they still had the Lajoie unused artwork that will now save Goudey by being both a quick fix and one that would not have cost them any extra money from their 1934 budget.

Again, just my theory.

Very interesting theory, Pete, and great insight into the Lajoie card.

I think you may have to make some leaps of faith to try to understand why Hubbell was included in the Sport Kings set and Lajoie was not. It might not have been an "either/or" scenario. Perhaps they had to shorten up the set and Lajoie simply didn't make the cut. We'll probably never know.

Hubbell's inclusion in the Sport Kings set is not much of a stretch when you look at some of the other athletes included in the set. Some of the selections were also in similar, fairly early stages of their careers. And not all of the athletes were titans of their sport like Ruth and Cobb. Some of the hockey selections, while being eventual HOFers, were not exactly what one would consider hockey royalty either.

However, I think it's very plausible that the artwork used on the '33 Goudey Lajoie #106 could very well have been intended for the Sport Kings set. The theory is so intriguing, I had to make a fantasy card based on it. What if?

[WWG]

Anyone here shell out the $264,000.00 for this beauty?

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by WWG

Anyone here shell out the $264,000.00 for this beauty?

better value than that PSA 9 Gehrig for twice the money...imo!

[petecld]

Originally Posted by CW

Very interesting theory, Pete, and great insight into the Lajoie card.

I think you may have to make some leaps of faith to try to understand why Hubbell was included in the Sport Kings set and Lajoie was not. It might not have been an "either/or" scenario. Perhaps they had to shorten up the set and Lajoie simply didn't make the cut. We'll probably never know.

Hubbell's inclusion in the Sport Kings set is not much of a stretch when you look at some of the other athletes included in the set. Some of the selections were also in similar, fairly early stages of their careers. And not all of the athletes were titans of their sport like Ruth and Cobb. Some of the hockey selections, while being eventual HOFers, were not exactly what one would consider hockey royalty either.

However, I think it's very plausible that the artwork used on the '33 Goudey Lajoie #106 could very well have been intended for the Sport Kings set. The theory is so intriguing, I had to make a fantasy card based on it. What if?

That is awesome. Thank you CW.

Let's hope we don't see one on eBay as a "Proof"

Peter

[PhillyFan1883]

Cool theory. Could be true. The thought they had the rights for the sports kings is interesting. I always wondered the same. I dont put too much into the Hubbel thought since he did have the big year before. Who knows. The uncut sheet that sold in Heritage years back with the Lajoie on it was an incredible piece to your whole point. I didnt notice for years the top of the card is 1934 Styled, but the bottom does not say “lou gehrig says”. See the Lajoie on the Uncut sheet is pretty cool. Still I wonder if they had Lajoie in mind before production. Everything points to no, but could Goudey really think they could skip a card and not have to answer to collectors? Always a great discussion.