Why was card #106 in 1933 Goudey Lajoie?

[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