[Spike]

I've been looking at the timelines & designs of Goudey and National Chicle between 1933 and 1937 and wonder if the (repeated) 24-player series released as 1938 Goudey is, essentially, two design proposals abandoned by National Chicle when they went bankrupt and completed by Goudey for 1938 after they acquired Chicle's assets and equipment.

The art in Chicle's hand-painted sets and innovation of their die-cut Batter-Ups stands out compared to Goudey's repeated use (and reuse) of black-and-white or tinted photos for cards & premiums, leading me to think Goudey's best creative talent went to local competitors after 1933-34. (Like Goudey, both National Chicle and DeLong were based in Greater Boston.) Artistically, 1938 Goudey is a significant departure from their 1935-37 baseball issues, but closer to Chicle's handmade style.

The mystery I hope this can explain is why Goudey printed two near-identical series of the same 24 players. If Chicle themselves planned new cards in 1937 or 1938, they could've continued the 1934-36 Diamond Stars, but might've either lost their artist or needed a cheaper option. 1938's cards are headless figure drawings overlaid with newspaper cut-outs. It's good-looking, but not complicated to produce. Rookie Bobby Doerr dates the art itself to 1937, but it could've been April 1937, as Doerr started strong and played locally for Boston.

No single detail makes a sure link 1938 Goudey and Chicle, but the business timing makes sense, considering how little effort Goudey put into baseball packs after 1936. Chicle's artist could've created two 24-player sets to give them options: "Which do you like better, with or without cartoons?" 1938's font is also a better match for Chicle; compare its clean lettering to Diamond Stars.

Chicle might've planned to use just one or the other, but once Goudey acquired Chicle's assets, any ready-to-print cards, even if repetitive, would've been a bonus. They might've even brought back former Goudey employees, ready to link to 1933's glory days by starting at #241.

So am I crazy? Do I have important history wrong? It's hard to think this hasn't been considered before, given the attention paid to Topps' similar acquisition of Bowman a generation later.