anyone here working on a PSA set of '33 Goudeys?

goose3 · October 30, 2006 8:22PM

Out of all of the stuff I've sold this year and handled for my dad....I sort of fell for the '33 Goudeys.

I'm seriously considering a set of them.....BUT it's got that damn Lajoie card in it.

1420sports · October 30, 2006 9:19PM

Even w/o the Lajoie, it is still a huge challenge - go for it!

ArnyVee · October 31, 2006 1:04AM

Go for it Goose!

You can either build it very slowly in high grades or start with the set at lower grades and then upgrade them slowly later. Either way, that's gotta be a very fun set to put together!

cmoking · October 31, 2006 1:24AM

Many people feel the set is complete without the Lajoie, which was printed in 1934. Even a couple of top guys on the registry apparently feel this way. I think Fogel doesn't have a Lajoie in his set. The Lajoie is really a freak card. If you are going to collect this set, I wouldn't worry about the Lajoie at all.

cmoking · October 31, 2006 1:25AM

one other note- It seems the PSA 4- PSA 6 range of these cards are about as cheap as it has been over the last 2 and a half years. One could look at this as a buying opportunity. There aren't that many starting sets or in the middle of sets right now. Who knows, in 6 months, that could change.

Griffins · October 31, 2006 2:07AM

King-
If the Lajoie isn't part of the '33 set then do you consider it part of the '34 set?
What about the '33 #106 Durocher?

packman · October 31, 2006 4:36AM

I hope the Durocher is not part of the Goudey set. If so, then there is probably only one complete set. In my opinion, the cards that comprise the set should be limited to the cards actually intended to be released as part of the set when produced. Thus, the Lajoie would not qualify since it was made with the 1934 Goudey set. The Durocher was never intended to be released to the public. The variations and rarities such as Lajoie should be treated as supplements to the set rather then part of the set.

Does anyone know who has the Durocher? It was my understanding that only one card was produced. Do you know why Goudey did not release the Durocher? Was it on the production sheet and not released? Was it removed from the set before the production sheet was finalized?

David

Griffins · October 31, 2006 4:57AM

From what I understand the Durocher was originally on the production sheet, and then moved to another number. #106 was left off, but printed on the high number sheet of the '34 set ("Chuck Klein Says....). There is only one, hand cut, and was part of the Halper Collection, and resold 1 more time. I think it went for about 12-13K last time, but not positive.

diamondman · October 31, 2006 5:40AM

my understanding on the Nap Lajoie card was that the only way you could get it was by writing a letter to the company and they would send the card to you. something about not being able to release it in the regular issue release and then they would send you one attached by a paper clip to the thank you letter they would send you I have seen two Lajoies and both had what looked to be a small light indentation on top left of the card (paper clip mark). both were nice cards probally psa 6 & 7 ,one sold for 31,000 and the other one went for 37,500.

cmoking · October 31, 2006 9:40AM

I'm not saying it isn't part of the set, what I'm saying is that beause of the freakiness of the card, I think it's fine for collectors to not consider it part of their set when collecting the 33 Goudey set. That doesn't mean it belongs with the 34 set, nor does it mean the Durocher should be the #106 card. It just means it depends on how you want to look at it. Personally, I have no problem with the Lajoie, and have one for each of my sets. But I wouldn't fault anyone else that wouldn't consider it as part of the set for any reason.

KansasJayhawk · October 31, 2006 11:01AM

It's a great set go for it!

helionaut · October 31, 2006 12:50PM

I can't remember why he was left out, but Lajoie was supposed to be #106. The story I heard is that a lot of collector's wrote to Gum asking where #106 was, so they printed the card along with the 1934 cards and sent them along to people who asked for one to complete their 1933 sets. An uncut sheet with that card was sold at auction 5-10 years ago, maybe from Halper.

Go for the set. I've been debating going for it for years, though I only have 1 raw card so far (Moe Berg). Even coming close in 4-6 would be a nice thing to have.

Griffins · October 31, 2006 1:14PM

The story I'd read was that they intentionally didn't print #106 since anyone with a complete set was entitled to a baseball uniform. US Caramel had done this with Fred Lindstrom in the '32 (actually '33) set, as well as with William McKinley in the presidents set. And George C Miller had done it with Ivy Andrews in there set. Guess it was OK to rip kids off during the depression!
Someone faxed me a copy of the letter from Goudey that was sent out in '34 with the Lajoie. I can't seem to find it, but it was a short note on letterhead. My question is: if they were all paper clipped to the letter (as is the accepted story) then why are there PSA 7's and 8's? Wouldn't that put enough of a dent in them to downgrade them, or have they been soaked out? And if they weren't all clipped on how were they issued?
No wonder I can't finish my '33 set, CMoking is bogarting all the Lajoie's!

2dueces · October 31, 2006 10:25PM

Griff, I don't disagree with your explaination. I have seen that #106 was a chase card. Kids kept buying and buying packs hoping to get a 106 to complete their sets. I guess either way it was ok to rip off kids in the 30's. Finally enough people complained and 106 was offered by mail the next year. So as everyone has said, it is a 34 card and not meant to be in the 33 set origionally.

Griffins · November 1, 2006 1:24AM

Joe-
So by that argument the '34 set is not complete without Lajoie. The design goes with '34, so that makes sense.
Would anyone consider the '34 set complete without it?

sagard · November 1, 2006 4:47AM

So if the Goudey Lajoie card was printed with the '34s why isn't it found in larger quantities? Were they strict about destroying the excess?

Griffins · November 1, 2006 5:10AM

it was printed on the high number sheet (which are a bit tougher to find), and then only distributed upon request.

TheCARDKid · November 1, 2006 5:36AM

It's an awesome looking sheet. I think there are 5 or 6 known?

packman · November 1, 2006 5:46AM

That is great looking sheet. Since the Lajoie had the same print run as the others on the sheet, I wonder how many cards went out the back door. I would assume that there was very little perceived value to the card back then. Unlike the 1989 Upper Deck shenanigans, maybe the surplus minus a few examples were destroyed. Perhaps the high grade examples are non-mailed examples rather then soaked examples?

David

2dueces · November 1, 2006 6:20AM

I don't think it was part of the 34 set either. Kinda like a redemtion card. Of course i'm far from an expert on this set, so I guess we would have to asked the puriest what they think.

cmoking · November 1, 2006 6:22AM

Anthony, I think I've solved my own personal dillema of the 33 or 34 Lajoie by collecting both the 33 and 34 Goudey set! This way, however way I want to look at it, belonging to the 33 set or the 34 set, I've got a nice home for it.

As for the sheets - fantastic image! I notice it is 5 x 5 or 25 cards. Any idea how many cards were on previous sheets? This is only 24 cards out of the 96 cards in the 1934 set. So that means there were 72 cards in the previous sheets. Were those 72 cards printed in 3 sheets of 24? That's a bit interesting because it means they had to change the size of the sheets to accommodate for the printing of the Lajoie and the angry letters.

Griffins · November 1, 2006 6:37AM

the others were 6x4 I believe. They did reconfigure the sheet to accomodate the Lajoie.
The Lajoie sheet usually sells in the 100K range, but one slipped under the radar in a Lipset auction a couple of years ago for just under 20K.

TheCARDKid · November 1, 2006 7:01AM

Goudey sheets are just spectacular collectibles. Words don't do them justice.

The only other '34 Goudey sheet I have saved as a jpg is a low number sheet that was in a Mastro auction a few years.

What an inspired piece.

Machodoc · November 1, 2006 7:28AM

I'm working on it only to the extent that I'm seeking occasional upgrades to my set, especially for cards #37 and 52 which I'm looking for either a 6 or a 7. On the LaJoie debate, I guess I'm a little biased on the matter since I have one. I just got damn tired at looking at that 99.58% completion percentage!

SW

cmoking · November 1, 2006 9:59AM

If I may - here's the link to my registry set:

cmoking jr

I'm working on it in all PSA 5. I've got scans for almost all the cards. Right now, I'm missing 3 cards for the set, although one of them (108 Kuhel) I have in a SGC 60. I also have the 1 Bengough, 2 Vance, 33 Kress and 92 Gehrig in SGC 60 (hope they will cross) and awaiting the 22 Traynor, 58 ODoul and 91 Zachary in PSA 5 in the mail. Getting to that all PSA 5 goal pretty soon.

If anyone has the tough 31 Lazzeri and/or the 154 Foxx in PSA 5, please let me know!

KansasJayhawk · November 1, 2006 10:11AM

Cmoking what ever happened to your high end set? did you sell it off?

cmoking · November 1, 2006 12:11PM

I still own about 75% of it, sold off some. In that one, I'm shooting for 8s for the HOFers and 7s for the commons. I'm trying to sell off the common 8s I still own. I decide to take it off the registry because I was making so many changes that it was a hassle to other card owners to get the dreaded "the card belongs to another set owner". I'll put it up again someday when my transactions slow down to the point where I'm only buying.

KansasJayhawk · November 1, 2006 9:26PM

Good to hear, that set you are building is very nice, I always enjoy viewing it. I have an extra PSA 5 #52 Cohen, perhaps we can work out a trade, PM me if interested.

cmoking · November 2, 2006 2:27AM

PM sent!

djspann · November 2, 2006 11:24PM

I haven't been watching Goudeys, so I don't have a feel for their prices -- how much do you think it would cost to put together a set in approximately PSA 4? I'd work at it for several years, I expect...

How much do the Lajoie's sell for around PSA 4?

Thanks.

Maybe I should stop reading these boards...I keep getting interested in sets that I could resist before.

Doug

Griffins · November 2, 2006 11:36PM

A PSA 4 Lajoie last year in Mastro sold for 24K, another last month for 17.5K

goose3 · November 3, 2006 6:32AM

those of you that have the Lajoie card....

How about posting some pics of that eye candy!!!

should I edit the title of this to read "Official PSA 1933 Goudey Thread"??

cmoking · November 3, 2006 8:52AM

here's mine with the cert number whited out

cmoking · November 3, 2006 8:54AM

<< <i>I haven't been watching Goudeys, so I don't have a feel for their prices -- how much do you think it would cost to put together a set in approximately PSA 4? I'd work at it for several years, I expect... >>

SMR has a PSA 4 set (sans 106) at $28,855. I think that's about what one can expect if it was bought in a Mastro or REA auction...after the juice. If you hunted for it on ebay, card by card, or in small lots, I think it can be had for a bit less, but would take a year of dedicated collecting. Probably $20K-25K range is my guess. The Lajoie in a 4 would almost double that cost.

goose3 · November 3, 2006 9:42AM

NICE card cmoking.....Very Very nice.

Thank you for sharing.

Arsenal83 · November 3, 2006 1:25PM

Cmoking - one word that describes that card .... sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaat!!!!!

anyone here working on a PSA set of '33 Goudeys?

Comments