Pogo The Clown wrote:I don't recall. In the 1988 senate hearings they were listed at 300 members. I seem to recall other sources having them at 250 during the late 80s but I'm not sure on that. Either way the Gambinos shrunk significantly from the 80s to the 2000s.
Pogo
Just found it in a Joe Isgro article, it was from the year 2000.
Prosecutors say Joseph Isgro, a Tarzana record executive arrested last week by federal agents, is a "soldier" for the Gambino crime family who has been running a "violent" extortion and loan-sharking operation since 1994. Citing an FBI affidavit, prosecutors said Isgro is one of 192 identifiable members of the Gambino clan. He has been the subject of a federal investigation for "many years."
Find it hard to believe they were at 300 in 88, just my opinion. 250 sounds more believable considering there could have been something like 20 unknown members
Not really that hard to believe. From 1998 to the present I've counted at least 88 members who have died. There are probably many more who I missed. Not a stretch that an equally large number died from the mid 80s-early 2000s. You have to keep in mind that in the mid 80s there still several Anasatia, Mangano and even D'Aquila era members still were alive who would have died during the late 80s and 90s accounting for the large drop in membership. Plus you have to factor in all of the members who were killed and flipped during this time period, further reducing their numbers.
Pogo
It's a new morning in America... fresh, vital. The old cynicism is gone. We have faith in our leaders. We're optimistic as to what becomes of it all. It really boils down to our ability to accept. We don't need pessimism. There are no limits.
Pogo The Clown wrote:Not really that hard to believe. From 1998 to the present I've counted at least 88 members who have died.
Sure. But for your argument to hold merit it must also assume every member who dies, isnt being replaced. So your premise must be around 140-190 members must have died in a twelve year span without a single member being replaced, in order for their membership to dwindle from 250/300 down to the bonannos 110.
What are the chances of that?
Aside from that the Isigro article above states 194 known members in 2000. Leaving the family comfortably over the 200 mark with the addition of at a minimum a handful of unknown members.
So, again, the Gambinos were approx twice the numerical size of the Bonannos and a comfortable 2nd place.
This is one of the biggest differences in the viewpoints of some board members, in my opinion.
Tommy Lucchese for example ran one of the smallest families in New York, but was an absolute power on the Commission and in national mob politics. Magaddino was one of the most powerful leaders of the entire US mafia capable of influencing events in NYC from the 1930s through the 1960s and he ran a relatively small family in Buffalo. Bufalino's family was tiny but he was another who had a large presence in his heyday.
If you're talking about membership, rackets, and money, then that's a different story, but informants and witnesses in both the US and Sicily have emphasized time and time again that internal politics aren't measured by those things. Certain leaders/members can be massively influential regardless of the size/scope of their organization.
This is similar to when people measure a family's existence by its level of illegal activity or rackets. A mob family is a family if it has leaders and membership. They might be retired, almost dead, independent, or an inch away from becoming defunct, or on the other end of the spectrum they might all be migrant workers in New Orleans in the 1890s barely able to feed their families, but according to the rules of the organization, a Cosa Nostra family is a Cosa Nostra family. Similarly a boss is a boss and Joe Massino was an influential one who happened to be on the streets running what was at the time seen as a cohesive, strong family.
All of that said, I think the whole "ranking" of families is mostly subjective bullshit.
Never said they dropped to 110. Just that they significantly shrunk from the mid 80s to the 2000s.
Now that I think about it I'd say both the Genovese and Gambino families are much smaller today than we have come to believe. Each have lost well over 100 members in less than 20 years. I very much doubt that they have come even close to replacing all those lost members during this same period. I'd say they are much closer in size now to the other 3 families.
Pogo
It's a new morning in America... fresh, vital. The old cynicism is gone. We have faith in our leaders. We're optimistic as to what becomes of it all. It really boils down to our ability to accept. We don't need pessimism. There are no limits.
What about the members that have been made who you don't know about and actual members that have been members for years that are not on the radar , there is no way anyone can precisely say what numbers each family have . They don't put a memo out everytime they have a making ceremony . How do u know that the genovese family haven't had two making ceremonies this year and made 10 new guys ??? You don't . It's all guess work
And how do you know that they have? Enough information has come out to where we can reach reasonable conclusions. There is nothing to suggest that they have made over 100 new members in the last 18 years. In fact everything points against it.
Pogo
It's a new morning in America... fresh, vital. The old cynicism is gone. We have faith in our leaders. We're optimistic as to what becomes of it all. It really boils down to our ability to accept. We don't need pessimism. There are no limits.
That's my point , I don't know that they have and you don't know that they haven't, it's conceivable you could be out by 25-30 members either way , there's guys that have been made for years that are not on any chart and the Feds don't know who they are
All the evidence points against them making over 100 new members during this period or even coming close. So the point still stands that they are much smaller today than we have come to believe.
Pogo
It's a new morning in America... fresh, vital. The old cynicism is gone. We have faith in our leaders. We're optimistic as to what becomes of it all. It really boils down to our ability to accept. We don't need pessimism. There are no limits.
All of that said, I think the whole "ranking" of families is mostly subjective bullshit.
I completely agree with this. Power and strength is not in numbers but within the individuals and members of the different Families. Power and strength is within dedication, motivation and smartness. If a Mafia member knows how to win a sitdown, that would make him powerful. If a small Family with only 30 members all win sitdowns with a Family of 120 members, the smaller Family will be more powerful than the bigger one. It´s at sitdowns power is meassured, not in the number of guns or associates a member has/how many members a Family has.
Pogo The Clown wrote:Never said they dropped to 110. Just that they significantly shrunk from the mid 80s to the 2000s.
You've stated:
Pogo The Clown wrote: At the time their numbers and rackets were pretty comparable
I was illustrating they weren't.
Pogo The Clown wrote:Each have lost well over 100 members in less than 20 years. I very much doubt that they have come even close to replacing all those lost members during this same period.
Thats inducting on average FIVE members per year. Why is that so hard to believe?
To put that into context if they hold an induction of 10 guys, they maintain their average for two years.
What evidence are you basing your contention the Gambinos and Westside are much smaller than commonly thought?
HairyKnuckles wrote:It´s at sitdowns power is meassured, not in the number of guns or associates a member has/how many members a Family has.
Revenue and numerical size would determine the ability to win a sitdown to a certain degree.
I would be surprised if you said that Gigante or Castellano's power at the table, be it sitdown or commission, had nothing to do with the size and money of their respective families for example.
Pogo The Clown wrote:Never said they dropped to 110. Just that they significantly shrunk from the mid 80s to the 2000s.
You've stated:
Pogo The Clown wrote: At the time their numbers and rackets were pretty comparable
I was illustrating they weren't.
Pogo The Clown wrote:Each have lost well over 100 members in less than 20 years. I very much doubt that they have come even close to replacing all those lost members during this same period.
Thats inducting on average FIVE members per year. Why is that so hard to believe?
To put that into context if they hold an induction of 10 guys, they maintain their average for two years.
What evidence are you basing your contention the Gambinos and Westside are much smaller than commonly thought?
And each family can make 2 members at Christmas anyway can't they ??? So that's 3 members a year that they have to find . Defo not hard to believe
HairyKnuckles wrote:It´s at sitdowns power is meassured, not in the number of guns or associates a member has/how many members a Family has.
Revenue and numerical size would determine the ability to win a sitdown to a certain degree.
I would be surprised if you said that Gigante or Castellano's power at the table, be it sitdown or commission, had nothing to do with the size and money of their respective families for example.
I don´t know about that, Sonny. Castellano knew the construction business inside and out. He would win a sitdown with anybody just based on his knowledge and experience in that field. He thrived at that kind of thing. He loved those kind of sitdowns. Gigante or any other boss with (hypothetically speaking) 700 made members under him would not stand a chance against him. Winning a sitdown has nothing to do with the number of made guys a boss has. It´s around the table disputes are settled, not on a street corner or back alley where one party brings 20 guys and the other brings 30 with bazookas and hand grenades. When a dispute is settled, it´s final.
The ability to win sitdowns is one extremely important attribut with a Family captain. It´s often they who represents the Family´s soldiers in sitdowns with other Families.
SonnyBlackstein wrote:Thats inducting on average FIVE members per year. Why is that so hard to believe?
To put that into context if they hold an induction of 10 guys, they maintain their average for two years.
What evidence are you basing your contention the Gambinos and Westside are much smaller than commonly thought?
Because we know that the NY families don't hold ceremonies every year. Sometime they go several years without making new members. Often times when they do it is only handful (or less) at a time. We can also extrapolate from what has come out on the other families to determine that they haven't come close.
For example we know from the informants that the Colombos probably didn't even reach 30 new members made during this period. While I'm sure the Genovese and Gambinos made many more it seems a major stretch that they would have made almost 4 times as many new members.
Pogo
It's a new morning in America... fresh, vital. The old cynicism is gone. We have faith in our leaders. We're optimistic as to what becomes of it all. It really boils down to our ability to accept. We don't need pessimism. There are no limits.
