Why was card #106 in 1933 Goudey Lajoie?

[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.

[Griffins]

Originally #106 was Durocher- the only copy was sold in the Copeland auction I believe.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Griffins

Originally #106 was Durocher- the only copy was sold in the Copeland auction I believe.

That was always my understanding also. However, if #106 was at one time supposed to be Durocher, who was going to be card #147--a different Durocher pose?

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

That was always my understanding also. However, if #106 was at one time supposed to be Durocher, who was going to be card #147--a different Durocher pose?

I'll preface this by saying our entire discussion is largely speculative, so please don't mistake my response here for pretending to assert any authority.

The yellow cells below show the card numbers on 1933 Goudey Sheets 1-5. I believe the blue cells show the original (Durocher 106 stage) numbering of Sheet 6. (For reasons I won't go into right here, I believe the sheet was originally numbered to close out the 1933 release at 1-144.) For what it's worth, all six of the known (to me) 1933 "mis-numbered" proofs have numbers from these blue cells.

goudey-alt-2.jpg

I believe the decision to renumber the Sheet 6 cards (including Durocher 106 changing to 147) was made to extend the release, meaning the original plan for card 147 was "figure it out in 1934." However, if we imagine a scenario where Goudey retained the original Sheet 6 numbering but kept adding more cards in 1933 then I think just about any 1933 card not yet released would have been an equally likely candidate for slot 147. About the only exception I'll offer is Jack Russell since (I believe) he was originally on Sheet 6 (Durocher 106 phase) before being bumped for the Bambino 144 DP.

Again, highly speculative, but so is the entire discussion.

[topcat61]

Lajoie was a late addition printing when collectors asked why they couldn't complete their sets, but inserting a (then) current player would have been a nightmare in terms of signing a contract and rights of publicity laws at that time. Having a retired player with roots to New England and not subject to those laws makes sense. Goudey obviously took a cue from the U.S. Caramel Co from Southie the previous year. If you think about it, those cards were being conceived in 1932 when the caramel cards were issued. I think George C. Miller followed suit but for different reasons than Goudey had.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by topcat61

Lajoie was a late addition printing when collectors asked why they couldn't complete their sets, but inserting a (then) current player would have been a nightmare in terms of signing a contract and rights of publicity laws at that time. Having a retired player with roots to New England and not subject to those laws makes sense. Goudey obviously took a cue from the U.S. Caramel Co from Southie the previous year. If you think about it, those cards were being conceived in 1932 when the caramel cards were issued. I think George C. Miller followed suit but for different reasons than Goudey had.

This is intriguing to me, but I wonder if any new contracts would have been needed to clone any of the other 239 cards from the 1933 release and spank a number 106 on the back. The Gehrig and Foxx cards in the set show that cloning and renumbering were hardly anathema over there.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk

[Ricky]

Although the 1933 Goudey's were being conceived of in 1932, the decision to fill in #106 with Lajoie probably happened in early 1934, while the '34s were being designed. So, theoretically, signing up players to appear in the 1934 set was underway, which means that a current player, maybe one who hadn't appeared in 1933, could have been used because contracts would already have been in hand.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by topcat61

Lajoie was a late addition printing when collectors asked why they couldn't complete their sets, but inserting a (then) current player would have been a nightmare in terms of signing a contract and rights of publicity laws at that time. Having a retired player with roots to New England and not subject to those laws makes sense. Goudey obviously took a cue from the U.S. Caramel Co from Southie the previous year. If you think about it, those cards were being conceived in 1932 when the caramel cards were issued. I think George C. Miller followed suit but for different reasons than Goudey had.

They could have done a player who they signed for 1934 that wasn't in the 1933 set like Hank Greenberg or Luke Appling.

[insidethewrapper]

Maybe Lajoie was bumped from the 1933 Sports King Set( only 3 baseball players) and they used that photo for the 1934 #106 replacement card.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by Spike

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.

I want to provide a counterpoint here. The 1934 set was 40% the size of the 1933 set. Meanwhile, revenue was nearly 50% that of the 1933 release. One read of that relationship is that Goudey's per card revenue in 1934 was actually higher than the year before. (And for various reasons it would make sense to think their per card costs were lower.)

My takeaway is that revenue was lower because the number of card was lower, not the other way around.

It's a bit speculative but my own research into the Goudey set has led me to believe the small 1934 offering was 1) a "topping off" of the 1933 series, and 2) at least in part smaller because brought much of it forward to 1933.

It's a long read, but I summarize a ton of my work in this post.

https://jasoncards.wordpress.com/201...f-1933-goudey/

[jp1216]

https://twitter.com/keitholbermann/s...95848412794880

Keith Olbermann posted a pic of the Durocher #106 recently.

[tedzan]

I'll preface all this good stuff presented here by first stating that my take on "why Lajoie ?" is elementary...…….
the GOUDEY GUM Co. was based in Boston....since 1901, Lajoie was a New England hero (native of Rhode Island)….and E. Gordon Goudey was a fan of his.







Hey guys, #106 was not the only "mysterious" card in the 1933 GOUDEY set. Here is an excerpt from a 1933 GOUDEY thread which illustrates the whole story...… http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=230037

Originally Posted by tedzan

Imagine you are in a Time Machine that transports you back to the Spring of 1933. Kids and older collectors were very excited with the new Goudey Gum cards.
You could get colorful cards of Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Jimmy Foxx, Dizzy Dean, etc. But, trying to put together a set of these cards became quite frustrating
because certain lower numbered cards were not available. By the end of the Summer of 1933 you diligently put together a set of 191 different subjects. Plus,
tons of duplicates as the result of spending lots of pennies trying to acquire the missing lower # cards (precisely 22 cards). In September Goudey issued their
9th sheet of cards (#s 214 - 231, and 97, 98, 99, 128, 129, 142). Finally, six of the mysterious lower numbered cards were available. So, 16 more to go.

That brings us to the World Series sheet. The 10th sheet was printed in mid October, the cards were issued in November 1933. The bios on the backs of them
reflect the 1933 World Series between the NY Giants and Washington. From my set, I have arranged these cards to exactly simulate this 24-card sheet..........








This diagram of the 10th sheet tells the story when the remaining 15 (of the 16) mysterious lower numbered cards where finally issued.





And, of course #106 (Lajoie) was issued in the Summer of 1934 to finally complete this 240-card set.

T'was a clever marketing trick that Goudey played in order to sell a lot of cards in 1933......but, it was also a "mean" trick on the collectors.

This Show-n-Tell will hopefully spark some interesting discussion regarding this great Goudey set. Show us some your "oldies-but-goodies" Goudey's.


TED Z
.

TED Z

T206 Reference
.