Why was card #106 in 1933 Goudey Lajoie?

[ruth_rookie]

They should have gone with Gehrig. Can you imagine a ‘33 Sport Kings Gehrig? The trio of BB Titans. And one more Gehrig I could’ve added to my collection. Doesn’t get any better than that!

[Rhotchkiss]

No clue whether it has merit, but it was a great read and very solid theory.

Didn’t Lajoie make another post-career appearance in a 1940 or 1941 Playball set?

[brianp-beme]

Lajoie is in the 1940 Play Ball set, along with a slew of other long retired players.

Brian

[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 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.

[jason.1969]

I don't have an answer for why Lajoie as opposed to a potentially bigger name retired star (Cy Young) or even a random active player who didn't make the cut in 1933. Another intriguing choice would have been Walter Johnson who was of course a HUGE name and also the Indians manager at the time.

What I can offer, though there is obviously speculation involved, is something I wrote up a couple days ago on the relationship among the Lajoie, Babe Ruth, Leo Durocher, and...Jack Russell. I presume many of you already know the relationship among the first three, but the fourth may be novel.

https://jasoncards.wordpress.com/201...rd-106-part-4/

Happy to see the topic of the 1933 set generating new discussion these days.