I discovered this site a couple of days ago and I must say it's very informative and I've learned a lot of new things.
I have one question though, can anybody tell me what the size of all the families was in their heyday, probably the 50's and 60's compared to today..

I know for instance from this site that the Denver, New Orleans, SF and SJ families are extinct, but I wonder how many made men they had in their heyday..

You'll see some pretty big figures for the NY families at their peak, ranging anywhere from around 200 to 400+. In my opinion, the estimates before the 1980s are not as reliable and become more suspect the further you go back. The max memberships D'Arco listed in his book were smaller. 300 for the Genovese and Gambinos, 150 for the Colombos, and 125-140 for the Luccheses and Bonannos.

From what I have read, New England and Philadelphia were around 70. New Jersey 60. Pittsburgh 30-35. Cleveland 50-60. Milwaukee 60 (not sure how much I believe that one). Detroit 75-100 (not sure how much I believe that one either). St Louis 35-40. Tampa 25-30. New Orleans 20. San Jose 30-35. San Francisco 25. Los Angeles I've seen as high as 60-70 in the 1950s but I find that hard to believe. Chicago has always been hard to read for obvious reasons but I've seen a max of 150-200, supposedly peaking in the 1970s. Not sure about Denver but, considering it was more of a gambling syndicate built around the Smaldones, the actual membership would probably be as small or smaller than anything listed above. Same for Dallas.

What's interesting is, if you add up all the possible max memberships of all the families it is closer to half of the 5,000 member so often quoted for peak Mafia membership.

Wow, 150-200 for Chicago? Did not expect that. What years, Ivy?

Ivey, don't bite my head off,
But why don't you believe Detroit coulda had 75- 100 members?
I really don't understand, this is 1940s and 50s Detroit, not today's bankrupt Detroit.
This was dope Capitol, auto industry Capitol, union power, Motown, still connected to Sicily, married into profaci family Detroit, right?
You don't think they were at least the equal of philly? Or Cleveland?
Really? I honestly don't get it...

I don't think D'Arco would know much about family sizes prior to his being made acting boss in 1988 or so.

Chicago 150 seems too high as do most of them. Cleveland seems right.

Those figures come from two sources.

The 150 members comes from what was probably the most well researched and knowledgeable poster on the Outfit I've seen on the forums. Some may remember "Little Al" from the RD forum years ago. Again, he said the membership peaked in the 1970s.

The 200 members comes from a statement made by former federal prosecutor Gary Shapiro last year when he said the Outfit’s membership never exceeded 200 members since the 1950s.



Yes, I do think they were at one time the equal of some of the other families you mentioned. And none of them got to 100 members. 75 I could maybe believe.



D'Arco said those were the maximum membership Luciano determined. Which, if that was the case, would be well known in terms of policy down through the years.

Makes sense...

Ivy good post. I disagree with Pittsburgh, I say 60 to 70 members at its peak and this was in the 1930s. Denver is hard, but if you go by the other Colorado crews sizes, Pueblo had maintained the power in that state from 1933 till the late 1960s at their peak they had 15 to 18 members, Trinidad had 6 members at its peak, so Denver would be roughly the same size as Pueblo. Los Angeles and Milwaukee 45 members a piece. When seeing those high numbers for Los Angeles, it is cause people are adding the San Diego crew and members from different families that operate in Los Angeles.

I never understood why they put a cap on membership. Woudln't the families want to expand as much as possible like any business? As long as a guy meets a certain earning expectation (as well as some history of violence) that is a good enough to be made why wouldn't give him his button?

From what I understand, it was to keep the relative balance of power between the families. In other words, to prevent one family or another from trying to expand as much as possible and becoming a threat to the other families.

i think control also played a part in it. Who can be Boss with 400 men to watch and direct?

Thanks a lot for the info Ivy..
Little Al's book is on my list to read next when I'm done reading The Sixth Family, also a great book..

So in actuality there were 'only' 2500 made men in the heyday of the American mob. That's for me also a much more feasible figure. I think law enforcement exaggerated the numbers or counted some associates as made men. I think the only men who can truly say correctly how big a family was/is, are informants who are at least capo in one of the families. Guys like Scarpa, Gravano, Fratianno, Lonordo and little Al of course..

The San Diego crew was part of the LA family, though. Frank Bompensiero was the man down there from prohibition until the 1950s. IIRC Fratianno said that when he was made in the late 1940s that 30 men were present for the ceremony. 5 guys got made plus another 5 guys in the early 1950s. So I find anywhere from 45 to 60 members at Dragna's peak to be believable.

If that is true, why have none of the rats before or after him ever mentioned such a thing? Wouldn't guys like Gravano, Scarpa, Massimo, DeFede, Vitale, or Casso have known about such a rule?

Huh? A cap on their memberships has been common knowledge for years. It's one reason why the families have to vet their prospective members with the other families and show which deceased members they are replacing. It's why Jo Jo Corozzo and Sal Vitale accused each other of finding names in the phone book to use as dead members they could then make new members to replace.

sal wanted to make 15 guys and jo jo,peter and maybe even nicky c(cant remember if he was there) and the gambinos said no where are you going to find 15 guys in this day and age

I think it was 10 guys and Nick Corozzo was the one who asked, "Where are you going to find 10 guys?"

Is it really that bad nowadays that they can't find 10 new recruits? I thought each made member would have at least one associate under their wing.

first of that meeting happened in the mid 90s when things really were bad things are alot better than before. Alot of guys were flipping nickys point was can you find 10 guys to make who wont flip and are trustworthy

it was an excuse they did not want the bonannos strengthening too much also to make ten guys at once is extreme. The bonnanos saw it as a chance to grow and strengthen the bonannos were also breaking there membership limit. i know the decavs made huge amount of guys ten years ago like 8 9 10 guys but it is not normal for familys to make that many guys all at once

http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/gdoc/hearings/8/83602776b/83602776b_2.pdf

he is the lists of guys and the numbers.It has been on this forum once,but i thought i could post it again.Lucchese had the smallest number of soldiers,supposedlly bonnanos had 195 soldiers..

?????

They can and do find even more than that. The fact the NY families have been able to keep their memberships stable prove as much.

I think Corozzo's comment was more towards the quality of the guys Vitale was looking to make.

That 195 figure for the Bonannos at the time has always struck me as strange and rather unbelievable. For one reason, it is such an outlier compared to other estimates of the Bonannos before and after. Furthermore, you can count the Bonanno members listed in the link you posted. There are about 120. While I don't think they knew of every member, I doubt 75 guys had managed to go unidentified.

Yes it was a little odd that the Bonannos had the same number of soldiers as the WS,not imposible but strange.Anyway,I thought tha the Gambino and Genovese familly had a lot more soldiers than that.At least 300 each,what do you think Ivy?
The Colombos 150 soldiers?Luccheses the smallest,can it be?

300 for the Genovese and Gambinos would probably be right if we're talking the 1950s and 1960s. But this report is from 1983. And the family estimates in the report (total members, not just soldiers) all seem accurate for the time except the Bonannos.

Gambino - est 250
Genovese - est 200
Bonanno - est 195 (actual list shows 120)
Colombo - est 115
Lucchese - est 110

Obviously what stands out like a sore thumb is the 195 for the Bonannos. I don't know what it's based on but I don't believe they were this big at the time, if ever.

I get what you are saying,it was 1983.The thing that bothers me is 110 for the Lucchese crime familly.Warent they number 3 in NY,since...like allways..?

Can anybody spot Joe Butch Corrao somewhere?

I'm not sure the Luccheses have always been #3. I think while the Genovese and Gambinos have always been #1 and 2, the three smaller families have fluctuated between #3-5. Also, since the 1980s, I don't think any of the three smaller families have gotten above 125 members.

Agreed.

Sciacca was overheard on wiretap in the 1960s saying that the Bonannos had 180 members. He was in a position to know the exact numbers. Also, it seems that many forget to include the Montreal crew. Bonanno was apparantly criticed for making new members when the books were closed. I don't see how Bonanno would allow his family, which was one of the three original families in New York, to be smaller than the Colombos or Luchesses. Especially because Bonanno was seeking to become the most powerful boss and was accused of 'planting his flags all over the world'.

If one goes with the higher estimates at its peak, 180 members or more would be believable.