|
Butterfinger and related sets of "cards"
The recent thread about the Baseball Gum advertising piece has sparked my curiosity and I did not want to hijack it further.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=301689 My purpose here is to get a more thorough understanding of who produced the 1934 pictures commonly considered R310 Butterfingers. The ad piece in the other thread speaks to 8x10 pictures of your favorite stars available with two pieces of gum for a penny. My questions are focused on other companies who used the same photos, which carry no advertising and are blank-backed. For starters, does anyone have a checklist of the store-display pictures that show the bright red Butterfinger overprint ad– “Free Baseball Picture with 5c Butterfinger”? I have not seen one. Maybe members here can post their holdings and one can be compiled. I have seen about 20 of the display cards, and used to own about a half dozen, now down to this one: https://photos.imageevent.com/imover...r310frisch.jpg A couple of things I find odd. First, the V94 set is still routinely called Canadian Butterfinger, even though Old Cardboard and other sources found back in 2008 that the set was produced by O-Pee-Chee, which has no association with The Curtiss Candy Company that made Butterfingers. It seems even Burdicks’ early ACC attributed the set to Wm. Paterson, Ltd., which as far as I can tell had no relation to Butterfinger either. Thus, it does not seem that Butterfinger or Curtiss had exclusive rights to use of the pictures. Second, the pictures are referred to as premiums, but they were available at point of sale and not as part of any redemption. The OC article from 2008 shows a salesmans’ envelope touting “a large 6 ½ x 8 ½" Picture of your favorite Baseball Star and one large stick of gum for 1c... 100 STICKS AND 100 PICTURES IN EACH BOX 50 BIG LEAGUE STARS”. What’s interesting is how this relates to the ad piece from the other thread, which offered a picture and two pieces of gum (size not indicated) for a penny. At first I thought that was too good a deal compared to the Butterfinger offer of a picture plus candy bar for a nickel, but maybe it was the other way around– the candy bar was not such a sweet deal (sorry). From a pricing standpoint these two “gum” offers are very much alike. Third, note that the O-Pee-Chee and Butterfinger checklists are very similar but not identical in set composition. OPC has 58 cards and Butterfinger 65 per Old Cardboard, but there are several pictures that are only in one set or the other; in fact, 29 Butterfinger subjects do not list in the Canadian set. Strangely, ALL of the players I have seen with Butterfinger red-overprint display are missing from the O-Pee-Chee checklist. That is all but one, Lou Gehrig, and as for him, many sources have doubted his existence in the Canadian set. Could it be that Curtiss/Butterfinger did have exclusivity for some of the players, but that others were fair game to be used by different advertisers? EDITED TO ADD: Maybe not, because I have seen the Frisch pose elsewhere. Anyway, just wanted to see if there is more out there on the R310 store displays and the V94 set than what my brief search has found. Thanks for looking, and feel free to add info or pics. |
2 Attachment(s)
Something also of interest in regards to the OPC connection to V94 is the name of the product and description.
Name of V94 product from OPC...Baseball Gum Name of R310 product from General Gum...Baseball Gum Description of V94 OPC photos...A large 6.5x8.5 picture of your favorite baseball star Description of R310 General Gum photos...A large 8x10 picture of your favorite baseball star Maybe just coincidence? |
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Has anyone seen/own: A Ruth R310 Butterfinger overprint? A "Foxx" or "Fox" Butterfinger overprint? A "Fox" V94 OPC? Could "Foxx" and "Fox" from R310 actually be from two different sets? |
Good catch Trey.
It seems that Old Cardboard has listed the R310 subjects found with the red overprint display ads, and they are: Bartell, Berger, Boyle, Carleton, Chapman, (Rip) Collins, Derringer, Earnshaw, Frey, Frisch, Gehrig, Grabowski, Moore, O’Farrell, Ott, Spohrer, and Swetonic. Five of these are St. Louis Cardinals. This looks to be consistent with my memory (Carleton and O’Farrell are among the most common if I recall correctly), although I can check old records for more. Please feel free to post scans of these or any others. Again, note that none of the 17 that carry this ad can be found in the Canadian version, with the possible exception of Lou Gehrig if confirmed. It will be interesting to see if anyone can show a Ducky Medwick or Rogers Hornsby example with red ad overprint, as they are two more Cardinals who do not appear in the Canadian version. As for the base set, it is also heavy on players who appeared for the Cardinals in either 1933 or 1934 and, upon a cursory review, it appears that not a single Chicago Cub is represented. That is curious, given Curtiss/Butterfinger was produced in Chicago and the Cubs at the time had four HOFers along with ace Lon Warneke. Anyway, here is another of my faves: https://photos.imageevent.com/imover...0Gehringer.jpg |
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeboo View Post What FACTS show that ALL of the R310s were released by Curtiss/BUTTERFINGER? Some FACTS that we know: FACT 1. V94 O-Pee-Chee product was named BASEBALL GUM FACT 2. Box topper from OP shows a General Gum product named BASEBALL GUM FACT 3. Box topper from OP shows the same address for General Gum as one of the properties that Curtiss Candy operated FACT 4. Box topper from OP describes 8x10 pictures which are, perhaps, coincidentally the same size as R310 FACT 5. Not even ONE overprinted BUTTERFINGER R310 has been found that exists in the V94 BASEBALL GUM set (wonder why that would be) FACT 6. More R310 subjects exist than V94 BASEBALL GUM subjects (again, wonder why that would be) FACT 7. General Gum had product names that were very, well, general, such as Movie Gum and Button Gum FACT 8. It would be much more likely for an overprinted BUTTERFINGER to exist than a standard box topper ad which would be more disposable. It's not a stretch to say store owners would have given away used or extra BUTTERFINGER ads when new orders came in. It's also not a stretch to say the BUTTERFINGER overprint is different than a standard store ad/box topper because it so closely resembles the actual product. (call that an opinion if you wish) FACT 9. Only a "FOXX" variation has been found in the V94 BASEBALL GUM set FACT 10. There is a "FOXX" and "FOX" variation found in R310 FACT 11. Babe Ruth has not been confirmed with a BUTTERFINGER(Curtiss Candy) overprint FACT 12. Wonderful hobby resources, such as the ACC, have been wrong before or incomplete FACT 13. For a long time people in the hobby incorrectly called V94...BUTTERFINGER (sound familiar?) FACT 14. The standard R310 has nothing printed on it to clearly identify brand FACT 15. There have been 65 black and white photos printed on roughly 8x10 thin stock identified, with NO branding, that have been categorized as R310 FACT 16. An O-PEE-CHEE BASEBALL GUM document describes "A large 6.5x8.5 picture of your favorite baseball star" FACT 17. The OP item describes "A large 8x10 picture of your favorite baseball star" That's a few to start... Is it significant that there have been plenty of overprinted BUTTERFINGERS found, but NONE of them exist in the V94 BASEBALL GUM set? Yes, and that's an OPINION based on FACTS. What is the likelihood that a supplemental distribution occurred from another brand that would be identical to the R310 BUTTERFINGERS? Very high, and that's an OPINION based on FACTS. I can form a long list of OPINIONS based on FACTS, but I'll just start with the two above. Really curious to see the FACTS that prove R310 was exclusive to BUTTERFINGER. There are a lot of OPINIONS being formed here, but let's base them off of FACTS. Thanks for the concise summary Trey. It lays it out well. Jonathan, Yes, I became familiar with the Ruth and Curtiss Company legal dispute, oh, about 35 years ago. So why haven’t you answered the question– if Butterfinger and only Butterfinger sold the R310 pictures, why is Ruth in the set? You have basically said that the OP’s ad piece could not be real because Ruth would never have allowed his picture to serve as the mail-in premium on account of his feud with Curtiss. Yet there he is in what you call the Butterfinger set, one of the Curtiss Company’s best performers. How do you explain this inconsistency? And as for the term “boxtoppers”, I do not know that these overprint, cardboard versions of the R310 pictures were for certain placed in/on the box or whether instead they were dropped off by salesman to be used as counter or window display pieces. If you are certain then we will use your term. I am unaware of any newspaper or other advertising from the time where Butterfinger promotes the pictures–the only evidence we have that they did is these cardboard overprint pieces, which do not tell us how many to collect. And sure, I understand that these ad overprints were not intended to be collected separately at the time, and yes the paper shortage occasioned by WWII impacted what has survived, but I find those explanations unsatisfactory. There are only 17 of 65 subjects known to have these Butterfinger ads. If as you say you at one time collected the set, then you know that there are multiples, and I mean a dozen or so for sure, of certain players like Bob O’Farrell and Tex Carleton. I stopped tracking them years ago but I am confident in saying that each of the 17 except maybe Gehrig has several copies known. It collides with the laws of probability, IMHO, to say that no examples survived for 3/4 of the subjects but that a dozen or so copies can be found for each of the rest. Put differently, it is hard to explain how there are probably 200 or so of these advertising overprints known but all of them are of 17 subjects, with ZERO known for the rest. While some more may surface in the coming years, it still butts with common sense to say that all 65 had the overprint and it is simply fate and the sands of time that took most of them out of existence. It is far more likely that not all 65 had the overprint in the first place, and if you accept that to be true, then there remains the question of whether all 65 pictures of R310 were in fact put out by Butterfinger. Maybe, maybe not. |
Trey/ Todd
Happy to offer what I know about Butterfingers issue of premiums ACC desinnation R310. So the issue is was Butterfinger / Curtiss Candy the only company to issue R310's. The overprints offer clear proof that Butterfinger offered the premiums designated R310 with their candy bar. 17 Differant overprints exist with certin St louis players having a greater known population than most. This would indicate that the printer created a sheet or a couple of sheets Generally these things are done in even numbers so 6 or 8 maybe. Printed the photos on heavier cardboard stock then overprinted the Butterfinger ad. With some sheets either being printed in greater quanity or certin players being on multiple sheets. No need to print every card in the set. Seems like a needless expense. 1939 playballs had an overprint on the back of all the cards in the 1st series. But the sheets already existed. No Extra work involved. You make a point of the fact that no V94's have been found with an overprint. But we know that they were sold with gum not candy bars so makes sense marketing would differ. As for Why Ruth in set despite Bad blood between Ruth and Curtiss candy. Simple whoever licensed the set of Baseball players had authority to included Ruth. And That is very different than going to Ruth or Christy Walsh and obtaining a license for Ruth to endorse the product and the premium. You bring up V94's a similar set licensed by OPC in canada. The Only Foxx in V94 is the corrected version so makes sense issued slightly later than R310. And NO RUTH.. did Ruth and or Walsh reach out and order Ruth and Gehrig pulled? No proof of that ...but there aint no Ruth and there ain't no Gehrig. Yes 2 sets licensed in 2 countries by 2 companies. I cannot say for certin that Curtiss was the only company to issue R310's but they were Nationally distributed by them a really big company with a sharp legal team. And no information has popped up in the last 87 years to show any other company issued R310's. And while I cannot say for certin that v94's were only issued by OPC,those same 87 years passed and no other proof has surfaced....well you get what I am saying. This began for me when I asked if the General gum sign is real then where is the card set described on the ad? Why is there no General gum baseball set when the General gum Funnies set was cataloged long ago? The reply I got from T and T was that R310 was the set...But I just dont see any proof behind that statement. All the facts Known point to them being issued in The USA by Curtiss candy and Butterfingers. For another large candy Manufacturer in Chicago same city as Curtis to compete on the small candy counters accross the country with the same set of premiums? Just make no sense to me why General gum would do that. And that there is no record of Curtiss suing General gum or anyone else over this issue. I believe R310's were licensed and issued by Curtiss alone. But I am certainly open to any proof that I am mistaken. |
"You make a point of the fact that no V94's have been found with an overprint." I certainly didn't make that point. I stated the FACT that no documented R310 Butterfinger overprint subjects have been found in the regular V94 set. Maybe that was not clear enough, I'll give the benefit.
As to the rest of that very long paragraph, if that's what you want to call that, it's full of nothing of significance to this discussion. You offer "certin" wild speculation, pure guesses, and uninformed theory. That's perfectly fine and dandy though if that's what you prefer. I prefer to look at the FACTS. The one take away you offer is that some R310s had Butterfinger overprints and some didn't, we all knew that already. Quote:
|
For those following along with the facts, Saint Louis(Cardinals) won the World Series in 7 games against Detroit in 1934. Game 7 was on October 9th, 1934. That could explain the high number of Saint Louis(Cardinals) players.
|
1 Attachment(s)
T/T
Please explain the significance that leeds you to the conclusion that the Fact that the Overprinted Subjects in The US Butterfinger set do not appear in the Canadian set proves in any way that R310's were issued by any other company but Butterfinger in the US? The 17 subjects do apper in the US R310 Set. Yes there are alot of Cardinals But I doubt the 1934 WS had an impact on that unless the set was issued in 1935 You asked me to reply to why there was a Ruth in the set despite bad blood between Curtis and Ruth over Baby Ruth Licensing ( that one of you has known about for 35 years the other doubts). The fact is Licensing seems to be the answer (not 100% but not wild uninformed opinion). As it is to many questions about who is in and who is out of a number of sets from the era. Why no Gehrig in Diamond stars or 39 playball ? Why no Ruth in 34 Goudey or Delong? Clearly anyone who was going to issue a set of cards in that era wanted to include Ruth and Gehrig but not everyone did because of Licensing. I also pointed out that the V94 having only the corrected version of Foxx points to it being issued or printed later. And the fact that Ruth is not included indicates to me that Licensing prevented it. I have been cracking the books and one entry in the Sterling Catalog (1977) referanced Baby Ruth Gum as having issued R310 photos. It lists Baby Ruth Gum as Sterling catalog or SC (SCR300) and Butterfinger as(SC R315) on page 27. Both products belonging to Curtiss. If anyone can shed some light on that entry it would be appreciated. There was a product called Baby Ruth gum issued by Curtiss. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Baby-Ruth-R....m46890.l49286 I understand that R310 and V94 are two seperate issues issued in seperate countries under seperate licene and those are facts. Also a fact that marketing materials very seldom included every subject in a card set. THE FACT that many of the 17 are more prevalant indicates they were either on more ad sheets or certin ad sheets were printed in greater quanity. ( Topps Short prints are a clear example) but a great number of population imbalances in card sets have been answered when printing recods were discovered. Your argument boils down to unless there is an overprint to prove that Curtiss / Butterfinger issued a subject then there is a possibility that someone else issued the other 47 subjects... ok logic says there is that possibility but still no proof to back it up. As I said before a great number of issues from the era are not identified Wide pens Fine pens R309 R310 R311 R312. Yes 87 years of hobby research and knowledge can be proved wrong but prove it. Too much hard work went into The ACC and Sports Collectors Bible and Beckett/ Eckes catalog SCD catalog to just take pot shots at their research. With nothing more than as Trey says " I wonder why that would be" |
5 Attachment(s)
Here are mine :
|
1 Attachment(s)
Beautiful Doug, a nice lot there!
Thinking about it...who knows, maybe the ACC had it right. Perhaps R310 was primarily a Baby Ruth (Gum) issue first and foremost, and by association the R310 photos were distributed in some form by General Gum(Same address). At some point they may have taken the Baby Ruth/General Gum photos and put them on thicker stock and slopped on a Butterfinger overprint to hastily increase distribution at the end of the run. Butterfinger may have been just a mere afterthought. |
"Too much hard work went into The ACC and Sports Collectors Bible and Beckett/ Eckes catalog SCD catalog to just take pot shots at their research."
What tripe. Trey, thanks For screenshotting the 1960 ACC. I can only imagine the exhaustive research that went into that entry giving us such definitive info on R310. No mention of the year that R310 was issued or the number of subjects, but at least we know with a high degree of certainty that the pictures were issued with Baby Ruth. Case closed, but damn, I guess that makes the Butterfinger overprints all fantasy pieces or reprints of fantasy pieces. Not that we need it now, but it will be nice when Jonathan posts the licensing agreement with Curtiss Candy so we can clear up a few loose ends. In the meantime, I will just hide in my shame for having ever questioned the 87 years of toil that was spent by the hobby forefathers on the R310 set, and the painstakingly thorough research they left for us on the subject. |
1 Attachment(s)
Research indicates that The Chicago Tribune owned a ship that was built in 1930 and it was docked right outside the front door of Curtiss Candy/General Gum. At some point in time The Chicago Tribune used a newsprint source in Thorold, ON and possibly other locations along the Great Lakes as well. More dots would need to be connected to cement some dates, but there’s enough evidence to make this interesting.
Perhaps the printing and paper characteristics of R310 and V94 are similar to that of a newspaper? Were either or both issues physically produced by The Chicago Tribune? It's interesting if nothing else. |
Additionally, one of the Curtiss owned production facilities looks to have been darn near connected to a Chicago Tribune facility. That alone doesn't prove anything, but again, it's interesting that the R310s were printed on thin paper and have images similar to what you would see in a newspaper. There could be some connection there, of course that would be hard to prove. It's interesting to think about though.
|
|
I was informed by a collector that General Gum Inc. issued a set of non-sport cards known in the hobby as "Trick Cards" that were also issued by O-Pee-Chee in the same era. They carry a R155 catalog designation, and the OPC are listed as V305. These have been dated to 1930 and circa 1933, depending on source. So the two companies had the same product released at least one other time.
The cards were issued with "Mystery Gum" here in the U.S. Here's what the cards looked like: https://auctions.vintagenonsports.co..._-LOT3507.aspx I could not see a street address on the wrapper--probably was none-- but a mailing envelope shows a different address from a little further north in Chicago, on Diversey Parkway. I do not see a connection with this address and Curtiss Candy, but I haven't yet looked for one. |
Nice find, Todd. The V305 and R155 sets certainly seem to show a pattern.
I read online about a Curtiss Candy factory worker that brought home different types of candy that were produced for distribution outside of the United States, things most Americans would have never heard of. Curtiss Candy likely had a reach far beyond what is common knowledge. As to the envelope that you mention, do you have a link or image? Here is where the Curtiss Candy General Offices were located...622 Diversey Parkway |
I found this in a thread from the Net54 non-sports forum, where the poster said he won (and showed) a group of several Trick cards in a lot that included this mailer:
https://photos.imageevent.com/imover.../large/gen.jpg Looks like we have match. General office as opposed to the plants. |
Really cool envelope. Yup, certainly a match between Curtiss Candy and General Gum offices and plant #3. Neat to see those dots connect.
|
Here is an unopened pack and box of several packs of Mystery Gum with the Magic Trick cards, from an REA auction:
https://photos.imageevent.com/imover...ed-packs-2.jpg https://photos.imageevent.com/imover...6%20144605.jpg |
Hmmmmm 1 cent for Mystery Gum, maybe 1 cent for Baseball Gum wasn't a stretch.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:32 AM. |