Why was card #106 in 1933 Goudey Lajoie?

[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]

I'm not sure where I sit on the idea that the Lajoie was originally intended for the Sport Kings set, other than we'll probably never know this sort of thing.

However, let's pretend it's true. Here are some bits and pieces that might provide context.

First series of Sport Kings set probably issued in very late 1933, hence probably planned in Summer/Fall 1933. This included the Ruth and Cobb cards. In a set that would feature three baseball HOFers, I can't imagine anyone would question their inclusion as kings of their sport.

Let's pretend for a minute that the high number series at least initially was to include Lajoie. Personally I'd find him an odd choice for the third of three baseball players regardless of his New England roots. I would see at minimum Wagner, Young, or Johnson as more popular and celebrated. (Still, let's go with it.)

But then Carl Hubbell finishes an incredible 1933 season capped by a dominant World Series. His 1933 was so amazing that the back of his Sport Kings card leads with the line: "Rated as the outstanding performer of the sports world for 1933." Damn, how does Goudey NOT find a spot for Hubbell in the set? No doubt kids want Hubbell more than Lajoie.

Okay, move over, Napoleon. We need your spot for King Carl. And now there's a leftover Lajoie card ready for whatever occasion calls for it.

Note that this high number series was not issued before February 1934, so there was plenty of time to make a swap such as this. And note further that the Lajoie wasn't printed as a 1933 Goudey card until late 1934, so the timing works out on that side also.

I mentioned at the beginning that the inclusion of Lajoie as the third Sports King would have perplexed me. That said, the exact logic I'd employ to rule him out of Sport Kings would seemingly rule him out from card 106, so what do I know?

[tedzan]

To me...."it's elementary my dear Watson"....on why Hubbell , instead of Lajoie, in GOUDEY's SPORTS KING set. GOUDEY chose the two big hitters,
and they threw in (excuse the pun) a pitcher.
And, as you know, Carl Hubbell was the man of the year in 1933. Plus, he followed it up with 4 more consecutive years with 20+ victories per year.





What isn't elementary to me is GOUDEY modifying their printing standard format (1933 and 1934) of 24-card sheets to a 25-card sheet to include
Lajoie in the 1934 GOUDEY high #'s press run.

Any thoughts on that ?






TED Z

T206 Reference
.