I respectfully somewhat disagree. If you take a look at the bosses convicted and sentenced throughout history up until 1998, the Gambinos had only John Gotti and Anastasia (for contempt and later tax evasion) put behind bars. Luciano, Costello, Genovese, Catena, Tieri (if boss), Salerno (if boss) and Gigante were all Genovese bosses who were convicted and sent to prison. Overall I would say (if using this factor and this is an important one in my opinion) that the Gambino bosses were far more successful in avoiding being sent to prison. And the numbers of made guys in the two crime families (atleast during the time span mentioned) has always been to the Gambinos advantage. I guess other factors can come into play such as the total money made, but honestly, how would we know the exact numbers?
First, one of the most fundamental ideas of organized crime is the organization not being dependent on a single man, even the boss. So, I'm not sure that some Gambino bosses avoiding prison, in itself, would necessarily make that family stronger.
Second, much of the belief about the Gambinos being dominant during Carlo's reign seems to have come from two false theories - 1) that Carlo was the "boss of bosses" and controlled other families. And 2) that the Genovese family suffered from lack of leadership. Of course, neither was true.
Third, even when the Gambinos were larger, it wasn't by a significant amount. Not in the way either of those families were larger than the three smaller NY families.
But Carlo in my opinion was the boss of all bosses. Not that he actually said that or that he was crowned that but everybody knew it. He was the boss of bosses like Luciano was. They were both never officially crowned that but everybody knew they were.
There's never really been such a position or mafioso wielding that kind of power here in the U.S. I suppose one could argue Giuseppe Morello in the early 20th century, or Salvatore Maranzano for a brief period before he was killed, but even those are a stretch. The closest thing to that was Toto Riina in Sicily. Gambino was, at most, the first among equals.
I really do believe the Gambinos made more money though. I've neve seems anywhere that the Genovese's were more powerful and richer than the Gambino's.
You should read more.
In 1990, one FBI official (Richard Ross) said, "You keep hearing all this crap about Gotti being the boss of the bosses, but the Genovese have always been the country's most powerful family."
In 1994, in his testimony in a case against the Mason Tenders Union, former Lucchese acting boss Al D'Arco said, "I have always considered the Genovese Family to be the most powerful LCN family in the United States."
A contributor Jerry Capeci used in his old Gang Land News articles back in the day, who answered questions under "Ask Andy," said "The Genovese family has probably been the most powerful La Cosa Nostra family of the last hundred years."
In 2000, while talking about the Commission Case, former NY federal prosecutor Michael Chertoff said, "The Genovese family, I think, in many ways was the most powerful family in the country in terms of it's domination and exploitation of labor unions and legitimate businesses."
In Selwyn Raab's book 2006 book Five Families, on page 315, he writes that the Genovese family were believed to be "more affluent" than the Gambinos.
It's the Genovese family that has always been referred to as the "Ivy League of the Underworld, the "Rolls Royce of Organized Crime," and who one law enforcement official said had "more or less invented labor racketeering."
Again, while a good argument can be made that the Gambinos rivaled the Genovese for about 35 years (from the late 1950's to early 1990's), there is really little to no evidence that they ever supplanted them.
