Smaller 1930s sets and the HOFers within

[Rob D.]

A recent Net54 post asking readers' opinions on the DeLong and R305 Tatoo Orbit sets got me to thinking. My initial reaction after reading the question about which set people like more was that I prefer the DeLongs. My assumption was that it has more "star power" regarding the number of Hall of Famers in the set (Gehrig came to mind right away) than the Tattoo Orbit. That led me to wondering about the other high-profile, smaller sets from the same time frame and what percentage of Hall of Famers make up each set.

I chose six sets -- 1932 U.S. Caramel, 1933 Butter Cream, 1933 DeLong, 1933 George C. Miller, 1933 R305 Tattoo Orbit and 1936 S&S Game -- and took a look at the number of Hall of Famers in each, along with the 2-3 "headliners" in each set. My definition of a headliner didn't allow for rare or short-print cards (the George Miller Andrews, the U.S. Caramel Lindstrom, etc.) but rather just the top-tier HOFers. I debated about including S&S Game because it just doesn't seem to "fit in" with the other five, but I ended up going with it because it is a cheaper alternative for someone trying to build a set.

I also debated about including the 1935 Goudey 4-in-1 set but didn't because it seemed like it would be comparing apples to oranges with the other six sets that have only one player per card. I left out larger sets like the 1933 Goudeys, again, because I felt the comparisons wouldn't be fair.

Listed below are the sets I looked at, with the number of cards in ( ), the number of HOFers and the "headliners." There are footnotes to the numbers. The U.S. Caramel set includes high-demand cards of non-baseball players (golf's Bobby Jones and boxing's Jack Dempsey, to name two). The Butter Cream Ruth, in addition to picturing arguably the most desirable Hall of Famer of all time, also is an incredibly rare short print. But even with those types of asterisks, I still found the numbers below interesting.

I'm curious to know whether a high percentage of Hall of Famers is appealing or a turnoff to those contemplating collecting a set. If a 1930s set doesn't include Ruth or Gehrig, does it lack appeal to you? Do the aesthetics of a set trump the players pictured?

(Apologies in advance for any errors that might be included below)

1932 U.S. Caramel (32): 22 HOFers (69 percent) -- Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig

1933 Butter Cream (30): 16 HOFers (53 percent) -- Ruth, Foxx,

1933 DeLong (24): 14 HOFers (58 percent) -- Gehrig, Foxx

1933 George C. Miller (32): 21 HOFers (66 percent) -- Dizzy Dean, Foxx

1933 R305 Tatoo Orbit (60): 16 HOFers (27 percent) -- Hornsby, Foxx, Dizzy Dean

1936 S&S Game (54): 18 HOFers (33 percent) -- Foxx, Hubbell

[Matt]

Rob - interesting approach. Any idea how many HOFers would be possible? In other words, how many players were active in 1933 that later became HOFers? U.S. Caramel (without Cobb who was done by then) and the GCMs both have 21 active HOFers. Off the top of my head, GCM didn't have Gehrig, Hornsby or Ruth that the US Caramels did, so at least 24 would be possible.

[tedzan]

Nine HOFers (37.5%) are included in the basic 24 card set of '38 G's.....DiMag, Feller, Foxx, Gehringer, etc.

The smaller the set, the availability of the cards, and the cost are usually the main factors when collectors decide on these types of sets.


TED Z

[FrankWakefield]

Hey Rob,

Having thought about this a bit, it seems to me that most collectors who decide to gather a few cards from the 30s usually gravitate toward the 1933 Goudey cards. There are lots of them, and they're readily identifiable by prewar collectors. THAT is an initial reason why folks didn't start with a focus toward Diamond Stars or Tattoo Orbits. I think the FIRST card from the era is acquired because of who the player is, not which set it is... and then more cards are likely to be gathered from that same set. So Goudey's are most likely to be collected, then Diamond Stars or Exhibits.

The high number of expensive HOFers, and the obscurity of the sets, put folks off with these smaller sets, as you've surmised. My first card from the 30s was a Goudey. Maybe T206 keeps someone from focusing on DeLongs... Maybe Goudeys does. Eventually I got a few cards from the set you mentioned. My first DeLong's card was Greenberg, I think I now have 3 or 4 DeLongs. I only have 2 US Caramels, some boxer and Earle Combs. I'd wanted Combs for several years before I finally got one, I was after him because he's one of 4 HOFers from Kentucky. With him I'm done with US Caramels, too many HOFers and an obscure set (to some). For a time I was seeking a card of each HOFer from his playing days. One card of each was enough. (I've since sold some of them and the goal is no longer a goal.)

I have 2 Butter Creams, half a dozen Tatto Orbits, and I think I have a George C. Miller and one S&S... just got them as type cards. No plan on completing them. Although there was a time that I contemplated finishing DeLongs and TO's.

The first set I completed was 1967 Topps, and that was in 1967. Mom later pitched them. Today I lack a couple of dozen. When I again started collecting, the first set I completed was 1948 Bowman. There, the quantity in the set helped. Same for W512s (although I lack one of the Cobb variations). Size helped. Still, when it comes to 1932-1936, there are all of those 33 and 34 Goudeys, all of those Diamond Stars. So someone after a particular player may well get one from one of those popular sets, and then they're more likely to chase others in that set than they are likely to seek cards from one of these smaller sets.

Thank you for starting a thread about prewar ballcards.


*** And as I suffer with CRS, someone has kindly emailed me that Greenberg isn't in DeLong's, and they're right. My first Foxx card was his DeLong card, and that was my first DeLong card. I think folks first get a card in these smaller sets because they're after a particular player, for me it was Foxx. (I think Greenberg was my first 34 Goudey.)

[egbeachley]

If the bottom 2 sets (Tattoo, S&S) were to drop their quantity by 1/2 to a level similar to the other sets, they would presumably drop the common players and have a similar percentage of HOF'ers.

[HRBAKER]

To echo what Frank said, I started mainly as a HOF collector and the card had to be comtemporaneous to their playing days. So in came the Goudeys. After collecting awhile I thought it would be challenging to put a set or two together. What were my criteria for selecting which sets to build, 1.) design, 2.) HOF selection, 3.) size/# of cards and the realistic chance to complete in a moderate stretch of time and 4.) cost. After it was all boiled down I landed on Delongs and Tattoos based on my criteria. I probably like the George Millers the best out of all listed but based on my criteria that was not a realistic goal. Although I love B&W cards (particularly the 20's sets) I have never developed even a mild interest in the S&S as a collector. I once bought a complete set and traded it to Mike Wheat at the 2000 National for 3PC796s and 2 Eastern Exhibits. Great post btw Rob.

[sox1903wschamp]

Nice job on this post Rob D. I have not comtemplated starting a 30's set but if I were to start one in the future, a high percent of Hall of Famers would be somewhat appealing but not a maker or breaker on choosing the set. If the set does not include Ruth or Gehrig, it does not lose appeal to me and yes, the aesthetics of the set beat the players pictured for me.

With that said, I love the Diamond Star set and it would be my first choice at this point in time. Thanks for the post.

[Matt]

For me, the HOFers are key - I can't bring myself to collect a full set because I'd get bored chasing down commons that don't mean anything to me, but I've often thought about going after a "HOFers only" subset from an issue.

[Orioles1954]

A depression-era set with many Hall of Famers which can be had on the cheap is the 1934-36 Batter-Up set. Perhaps it's the crazy color variations, but that set has grown on me like a weed. Very interesting and under-appreciated. Now that I have sold my Tattoo Orbit set, I am going to be doing a lot more with sets like DeLong, George C. Miller and Batter-Up. I don't really care if I complete them or not.

James