Five families numbers cap.

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.

BBCode is OFF
Smilies are OFF

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Five families numbers cap.

Re: Five families numbers cap.

by B. » Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:17 pm

Antiliar wrote:Thanks B

This appears to be the conversation:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html ... 3&tab=page
Here's the one I was talking about:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.htm ... 2&tab=page

Same info, though.

Re: Five families numbers cap.

by B. » Wed Nov 02, 2016 8:46 am

HairyKnuckles wrote:
Antiliar wrote:Thanks B

This appears to be the conversation:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html ... 3&tab=page
Thanks for finding this. It appears that Russo is talking about the Genovese Family´s desire to keep its numbers to 300 members. But he doesn´t mention a fixed cap.
He doesn't specifically say there is a "cap", but it strongly implies their limit is 300 members. Along with D'Arco's info about caps (which claims 300 for the Gen), Vinnie Palermo claimed the DeCavalcante family had a cap of 75. So I'm confident that caps do exist at least in the NY-NJ area, it's just a question of what the caps are... and here you have a Genovese member and a Lucchese acting boss both dropping the number 300.

Re: Five families numbers cap.

by willychichi » Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:25 am

Lupara wrote:
willychichi wrote:Thanks Lupara that makes sense that they would not want one family becoming too powerful. But why the low number of 300 especially during their heyday, why not 500 members?
300 isn't low in my book.
Your right 300 is not a low number I was just wondering if there was more to it considering they had higher numbers at one time. Thanks for the insights.

Re: Five families numbers cap.

by Lupara » Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:12 am

willychichi wrote:Thanks Lupara that makes sense that they would not want one family becoming too powerful. But why the low number of 300 especially during their heyday, why not 500 members?
300 isn't low in my book.

Re: Five families numbers cap.

by willychichi » Wed Nov 02, 2016 5:51 am

Lupara wrote:The numbers cap was there to ensure that one family wouldn't become too powerful in comparison with the others. It seems my hypothesis about the numbers of the 80s being similar to the 50s could in fact be true.
Thanks Lupara that makes sense that they would not want one family becoming too powerful. But why the low number of 300 especially during their heyday, why not 500 members?

Re: Five families numbers cap.

by Lupara » Wed Nov 02, 2016 4:21 am

The numbers cap was there to ensure that one family wouldn't become too powerful in comparison with the others. It seems my hypothesis about the numbers of the 80s being similar to the 50s could in fact be true.

Re: Five families numbers cap.

by willychichi » Wed Nov 02, 2016 3:32 am

HairyKnuckles wrote:
Antiliar wrote:Thanks B

This appears to be the conversation:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html ... 3&tab=page
Thanks for finding this. It appears that Russo is talking about the Genovese Family´s desire to keep its numbers to 300 members. But he doesn´t mention a fixed cap.
Why did they want to cap the numbers, it would seem that the more members they have the more people they would have on the street earning for the family?

Re: Five families numbers cap.

by HairyKnuckles » Wed Nov 02, 2016 1:21 am

Antiliar wrote:Thanks B

This appears to be the conversation:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html ... 3&tab=page
Thanks for finding this. It appears that Russo is talking about the Genovese Family´s desire to keep its numbers to 300 members. But he doesn´t mention a fixed cap.

Re: Five families numbers cap.

by B. » Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:34 pm

Antiliar wrote:Thanks B

This appears to be the conversation:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html ... 3&tab=page
Yep, that's the same conversation. Thanks for finding that. I had actually seen a different summary, but the gist of it was pretty much the same as above.

Hopefully a full transcript of the actual conversation is on MF somewhere. I'd like to read what was actually said.

Re: Five families numbers cap.

by Antiliar » Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:18 pm

Thanks B

This appears to be the conversation:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html ... 3&tab=page

Re: Five families numbers cap.

by B. » Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:13 am

Antiliar wrote:
B. wrote:
HairyKnuckles wrote:
Antiliar wrote:D'Arco claims that Lucky Luciano set the caps for all the Families. Luciano never had control over the other Families, and if anyone is going to set a cap for a borgata, it's going to be the leaders of that borgata. Maybe by the time D'Arco was an acting boss there were caps, but it's difficult to say how accurate his information is before he became a member (aside from his personal experiences). Mafiosi are well known for believing myths and passing them on.
Good post. There may have been a cap later on, from let´s say the late 1970s and 1980s but no cap before that. To the best of my knowledge, no informants from the 1950s and 1960s talked about a cap. That´s a bit surprising to me because these informants talked a lot about the rules. It looks to me that if D´Arco was aware of a cap he probably believed it had been around since the days of Lucky Luciano.
I would agree except for Pussy Russo being recorded in 1962 saying the Genovese had to keep their numbers at 300.
Where did he say that?
It's on MF. I'll try to find it later but my search limit is reached right now. It's a summary of a conversation between Russo and Anthony Randazzo.

Re: Five families numbers cap.

by Antiliar » Mon Oct 31, 2016 3:28 pm

B. wrote:
HairyKnuckles wrote:
Antiliar wrote:D'Arco claims that Lucky Luciano set the caps for all the Families. Luciano never had control over the other Families, and if anyone is going to set a cap for a borgata, it's going to be the leaders of that borgata. Maybe by the time D'Arco was an acting boss there were caps, but it's difficult to say how accurate his information is before he became a member (aside from his personal experiences). Mafiosi are well known for believing myths and passing them on.
Good post. There may have been a cap later on, from let´s say the late 1970s and 1980s but no cap before that. To the best of my knowledge, no informants from the 1950s and 1960s talked about a cap. That´s a bit surprising to me because these informants talked a lot about the rules. It looks to me that if D´Arco was aware of a cap he probably believed it had been around since the days of Lucky Luciano.
I would agree except for Pussy Russo being recorded in 1962 saying the Genovese had to keep their numbers at 300.
Where did he say that?

Re: Five families numbers cap.

by B. » Mon Oct 31, 2016 1:14 pm

HairyKnuckles wrote:
Antiliar wrote:D'Arco claims that Lucky Luciano set the caps for all the Families. Luciano never had control over the other Families, and if anyone is going to set a cap for a borgata, it's going to be the leaders of that borgata. Maybe by the time D'Arco was an acting boss there were caps, but it's difficult to say how accurate his information is before he became a member (aside from his personal experiences). Mafiosi are well known for believing myths and passing them on.
Good post. There may have been a cap later on, from let´s say the late 1970s and 1980s but no cap before that. To the best of my knowledge, no informants from the 1950s and 1960s talked about a cap. That´s a bit surprising to me because these informants talked a lot about the rules. It looks to me that if D´Arco was aware of a cap he probably believed it had been around since the days of Lucky Luciano.
I would agree except for Pussy Russo being recorded in 1962 saying the Genovese had to keep their numbers at 300.

Re: Five families numbers cap.

by Pogo The Clown » Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:12 am

I think all the NY families wer larger in those days not just the Bonnanos. For example Valache had the Genovese at 450 member at one point. I think they gradually shrank as the books were closed for long periods and they became much more restrictive in bringing in new members.


Pogo

Re: RE: Re: Five families numbers cap.

by Lupara » Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:05 am

Pogo The Clown wrote:The 60s figure does seem inflated but I can believe the 1931 number. I'm sure all the families had many more members in those days, including many members that were not actively involved in crime. It also seems that it was relatively easier to get made in those days as you saw several members getting made when they were still very young unlike today.


Pogo
If Bonanno really had that amount of men I just find it hard to believe how his family shrinked to more than half a few decades later. I find it hard to believe a family would allow itself to downsize so much and losing power in the process. It just doesn't make sense to me. Since the feds started counting numbers the families have more or less kept their numbers steady. Why they wouldn't do this during their height in the 30s, 40s and 50s beats me. I can believe that the families shrank a little but not that much.

Top