The mystery of the missing 1934 Cubs

[jason.1969]

Here is a fun baseball card mystery for this crowd. Perhaps one of you even has the answer!

I'll start with the 1934-36 National Chicle "Batter Up" set, where no Cubs are among the 80 cards of Series One, i.e., the 1934 series. The other 15 teams? Yep, they all have card. Might not mean anything, right?

But now let's go to the 1934 release of National Chicle Diamond Stars, which consisted of cards 1-24 from what would ultimately be a 108-card set. Once again, we get every team except...you guessed it! No Cubs!

Hmm, so how about 1934 Butterfinger, which consisted of 65 cards? Every team was represented except...that's right...everyone but the Cubs!

Okay, but what about 1934 Goudey? They definitely had Cubs! True. The set kicked off with its first series (1-24) by repeating 24 players, artwork and all, from the 1933 set. Three Cubs were part of this group. But then their next series comes along, cards 25-48, featuring entirely new cards. Well, 15 teams were there, and one was absent. Which one? Of course it was the Cubs!

One possible explanation, always, is coincidence. However, I do have to wonder if something more was going on.

[nolemmings]

Maybe P.K. Wrigley was flexing his relatively new control over Cubs ownership and did not want the team logo or name affiliated with products sold by rival gum companies.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Maybe P.K. Wrigley was flexing his relatively new control over Cubs ownership and did not want the team logo or name affiliated with products sold by rival gum companies.

This entire subject is interesting and not sure if we will ever truly solve the mystery

But I can see the point of not wanting to give your competitor and advantage by using your name, logo, and likeness

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Maybe P.K. Wrigley was flexing his relatively new control over Cubs ownership and did not want the team logo or name affiliated with products sold by rival gum companies.

Yes, that would make a ton of sense. If so, he definitely relented in time for 1934 Goudey's third series (49-72) and the 1935 series of Diamond Stars. I've been unable to determine whether Batter Up introduced any NEW cards in 1935, so for the moment I'll say "...1936 Batter Up" though perhaps 1935 Batter Up really is correct. (The distinction is something I'm actively researching at the moment.)

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Maybe P.K. Wrigley was flexing his relatively new control over Cubs ownership and did not want the team logo or name affiliated with products sold by rival gum companies.

This was my first thought as well. Image rights held by Wrigley Corp and not wanting to other companies to use their images

[BobC]

Or could it be that Wrigley wanted more compensation than others, so the card companies called his bluff and didn't include his team and players, until he relented because he realized he didn't want them all excluded from being shown like all the other teams/players in the leagues?

Or is it possible Wrigley may have been looking into possibly issuing cards with their own gum products, and didn't agree till after they shot down that idea?

[ecRich]

Wrigley was in the gum business. so maybe they didn't want to help N. Chicle who sold gum also.

[king11]

The 1933 Tattoo Orbit cards were a Wrigley release, so perhaps that might have been a factor in some way?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by ecRich

Wrigley was in the gum business. so maybe they didn't want to help N. Chicle who sold gum also.

Right, but then maybe realized they'd sell without Cubs anyway, so why loose out on promotion of your team/players otherwise.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by king11

The 1933 Tattoo Orbit cards were a Wrigley release, so perhaps that might have been a factor in some way?

Did not know that. Definitely could have played into the mystery somehow.

[Misunderestimated]

Cubs are also excluded from the 1939 Playball and 1948 Bowman sets...

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by Misunderestimated

Cubs are also excluded from the 1939 Playball and 1948 Bowman sets...

Not only that but 1940 Play Ball has no Cubs (active) players, just retired greats and a coach. And 1941 has no Cubs at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Misunderestimated

Cubs are also excluded from the 1939 Playball and 1948 Bowman sets...

Did not realize that either, that is even more mystifying.

There was another somewhat recent thread discussing the true origins of the W711 team issued cards of the Cincinnati Reds in 1938, 1939, and 1940. And one of the posters was local and had a team contact that was involved in the Red's history that he called to get some additional info about those team issues. Anyone in the Chicago area want to try calling the team to see if anyone there might have any info or historical data on why the Cubs may not have been part of those sets? Probably best coming from a local fan. What's the worst they can do, just say no, right?

[FrankWakefield]

I've not ever noticed the absence of the Cubs... interesting observation, Jason.

It seems like Wrigley didn't want images of his players and the team logos used to make money for those issuing companies. BUT, it could be that National Chicle, Goudy, and Butterfinger didn't want to be distributing cards that got people more interested in a Wrigley product, ie The Chicago Cubs. I think the former is much more likely, though.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

Here is a fun baseball card mystery for this crowd. Perhaps one of you even has the answer!

Okay, but what about 1934 Goudey? They definitely had Cubs! True. The set kicked off with its first series (1-24) by repeating 24 players, artwork and all, from the 1933 set. Three Cubs were part of this group. But then their next series comes along, cards 25-48, featuring entirely new cards. Well, 15 teams were there, and one was absent. Which one? Of course it was the Cubs!

One possible explanation, always, is coincidence. However, I do have to wonder if something more was going on.

Quite an interesting topic.

Now, regarding the 1934 GOUDEY set, I count six CUBS in it. Two HOFers Cuyler (#90) and Klein (#10), and Grimm (#3), English (#4), Nelson (#60), Tinning (#71 ).

How do you explain this ?

There's something more here than just WRIGLEY GUM Co. vs GOUDEY GUM Co. ? ?


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Quite an interesting topic.

Now, regarding the 1934 GOUDEY set, I count six CUBS in it. Two HOFers Cuyler (#90) and Klein (#10), and Grimm (#3), English (#4), Nelson (#60), Tinning (#71 ).

How do you explain this ?

There's something more here than just WRIGLEY GUM Co. vs GOUDEY GUM Co. ? ?


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Yes, Ted, your information is correct. Because the entire first series (1-24) consisted of players and artwork recycled from 1933, three Cubs showed up there "for free." But when the first new series of cards was issued (25-48), it included all 16 MLB teams except the Cubs. And then, as you note, there were Cubs in the third and fourth series.