Did the mob stop initiating new members from 1957?

I read somewhere that the Gambinos under Carlo Gambino didn't initiate new members until Carlo's death and Paul Castellano became the new boss. This had something to do with Albert Anastasia, who appearantly sold membership into his family. After Anastasia was killed, Vito Genovese and the other bosses therefore decided to stop initiating new members for a period of time.

It was said that Carlo Gambino had at some point 300 soldiers in his family. So we were to believe he made his family the biggest, without initiating new members? This suggests that the Gambinos already had that number of men before Don Carlo came to power. If this is true, it means that by the 1970s the families only had old men left as soldiers.

Something tells me this does not fit. Please enlighten me.

I have also read (I think it was in Selwyn Raab's book) that the formal books were closed in or around 1957. I heard about the allegation of selling of memberships but the version I heard was that Scalise was the one who was doing it. Of course would Scalise have risked that without checking with Albert? Probably not.

I think that this ban applied to all NY/NJ families. I don't know if it applied to the other groups still extant in the fifties-Boston, Philly, Chicago, New Orleans, etc..

According to Raab's book Anthony Accetturo was also formally inducted at or around 1976.

My hypothesis would be that the ban if it truly existed had less to do with any outrage over selling of memberships and more about ensuring that there was enough money to go around for current members-i.e. bosses/underbosses- and ensuring that no one Family got too much stronger than anyone else.

Although the distinction between soldier and associate could be quite important to those in the life, to those who are victims or customers it doesn't much matter if the two nice (and extremely large) men explaining to you that you absolutely must use their food supply company are in fact formal members of the Genovese Crime Family or mere associates/subcontractors.

It was also about maturity. By the late fifties the Mafia wasn't in street fights with any real rivals any longer so it didn't really need legions of street soldiers any more. It could make would be members take longer apprenticeships, which given increased federal attention and what some leaders saw as the declining quality of recruits, probably wasn't such a bad idea.

In past decades, the "books" have generally been opened and closed at different times and for various reasons amongst the New York families. The first time they were closed was around 1931 or 1932. Then during 1944 and 1945 they were opened when the Newark Family was dissolved and it's people were made into the New York families; then closing thereafter. Then the books were opened again in 1954 and closed again in 1957. The books were then reopened in 1972 when each New York family was allowed to make 2 new members, afterward being closed. They were then opened again in from 1974-1976, then closed again. At some point after that, the practice in New York seemed to move towards a family being able to make new members (once they had been approved by the other families) in order to replace ones that had recently died; plus an additional 2 at Christmas.

But I'm wondering how Carlo Gambino's family could have surpassed the Genovese family at some point, without initiating new members from 1957 till 1972. How could they have got 300 made men back then?

Multiple sources (including the Mafia Encyclopedia, Mafia dynasty, and even Jeri Capeci if I remember correctly) state that Carlo Gambino made his family one of the most if not the most powerful during his reign. John H. Davis, the writer of Mafia Dynasty, even writes that it's just a myth that the mob didn't initiate new members from 1957.

Another example is Joe Massino, who reputedly made his Bonanno family almost rivaling the Gambinos in numbers of made men, when they were previously decimated during the 1980s trials.

Membership estimates that far back vary to one degree or another. The two families have always been close in terms of size. The two largest in both New York and the nation. Before Carlo Gambino took over, the Genovese Family was said to be about 450 members and the Gambino Family about 400 members. During Carlo's reign, it appears the Gambinos surpassed the Genovese slightly in size, with the Gambino Family at about 250 members and the Genovese Family at about 200 members by the late 1980's.



That's why I said the books were generally closed. There were some exceptions here and there. For example, Nino Gaggi was supposedly made in 1960.



When the Bonannos had their resurgence during the last decade, they may have gotten as high as 150 members. Up from about 100 or so in the late 1990's. Meanwhile, the Gambinos remained at about 200 members during that time and now. The Bonannos are currently at somewhere between 115-125 members.

I should also point out that a the main reason why the books were opened again in the 1970's and so many guys were made in New York at the time was precisely because they needed to replenish their ranks with new blood, as many older members had died off. It was at that period when you first started to see the signs of general attrition in terms of both quality and quantity in the mob.

Okay, thanks again for the info. So if the Genoveses had 450 members before Carlo Gambino came to power, and the Gambinos had 400, how could the Gambinos during Carlo's reign have surpassed the Genoveses if they only made a few exceptions? That means the Gambinos must have initiated more than 50 new made men between 1957 and 1976. Or is it that a huge number of Genovese soldiers just went into retirement? This is the point I'm trying to make.

And if the Bonannos went from 100 to supposedly 150 during Massino's reign, how could the other New York families have allowed that? Wouldn't they have felt threatened?

Well, first we have to know if the numbers include exclusively "made" members or if they also reflect associates. Vincent Teresa wasn't made, right? But he apparently played a huge role in oneof the families. Would membership figures include him?

It's not for sure exactly at what point the Gambinos became slightly larger than the Genovese. It apparently was sometime during Carlo Gambino's reign, which lasted for almost 20 years, from 1957 to 1976. All that is known is that prior to that, the Genovese had been slightly larger. By the latter part of the 1970's, the Gambinos were considered to be slightly larger. It could be something as simple as the Genovese choosing not to make as many members as the Gambinos did when the books were opened.



Once again, it may have been as high as 150 on the high end. Technically, the other families were supposed to approve the names of prospective members on a list that would get passed around prior to the actual ceremony. But one reason for the large increase might be, as former Underboss Sal Vitale testified, that the Bonannos would take names out of the phone book, claim they were recently deceased Bonanno members, and then use that as an excuse to make new guys. Later on, Bonanno Acting Boss Vinny Basciano and Gambino Consigliere Joe Corozzo accused each other of doing that.

Those figures represented made (i.e. formally inducted) members. Not associates.

There can certainly be very high up associates with a lot of clout. But to call them a "member" is misleading, because that implies they are made, at least according to the traditional understanding of the term.

Sometimes authors and journalists can be a little free with what words they use. Some guy will be referred to as a the "loyal soldier" of this capo or that capo. But they are using the term "soldier" in a more generic sense, and not meaning an actual "Soldier," as in a made guy. Even some indictments can be confusing. For instance, in the recent "Family Secrets" case in Chicago, some defendants in the indictment were listed as "members" of this crew or that crew. But for some of them, that simply meant they were part of that crew, and not actually formally inducted members of the Outfit itself.

According to Peter Maas`s book "Underboss", Sammy Gravano was made by Paul Castellano, who was the boss between 1976 and 1985. So 1957...

However, Mafia needs more members, if the books remain close "forever" there would not be boss, caporegime, soldiers to promote, there would be only associates and you cannot put an associate as a Boss. In my opinion, I could be wrong. Unless Mafia rules has changed and we didn`t know! jajaja

The number of made men in families, and their "power" vis-a-vis others, is guesswork at best. The FBI and local law enforcement base their estimates on informants and the seats of their pants, not on anything concrete, much less "published." (A satirical magazine I used to subscribe to once published an "annual report" of the Gotti "enterprise." Hilarious!). The only mob "publication" was the list of proposed made guys the cops found in Junior Gotti's desk.

Lilo's right: didn't make much difference to the victim if the mob guy intimidating him was made or not. In fact, in some ways it was (maybe still is) better to be an associate--he doesn't get the presssure a made guy gets, and generally doesn't get anywhere near the attention made guys get from law enforcement.

That's why I said the books were generally closed. There were some exceptions here and there. For example, Nino Gaggi was supposedly made in 1960

Gaggi supposedly killed the guy who had killed both Scalise brothers and his reward was his button.
Gaggi was also "well in" with Castellano and Gambino so its not hard to see how an exception was made

For a criminal organization that doesn't intentionally release press reports, it doesn't come much better than informants who are able to identify made guys. And the FBI, as a matter of practice, requires the independent verification of two members before they consider a particular guy to be made. Over time, the feds have been able to build up quite an index of past and current members. Even Capeci said that their figures have been considered very accurate, and consistent, since the early 1980's. But the further you go back beyond that, the more questionable the estimates become.