Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfanNY
You understand that V94's and R310's are seperate sets. Licensed and sold by 2 seperate companies in two seperate countries. As such one would expect differences. And given that they were sold in different markets the Marketing was again probably differant. I do not know how they were displayed but a topper like used by Butterfinger might not have worked. To my knowledge the Foxx variation has not been confirmed. Please post a picture if you have one. As for the V94 Document please post a picture I have never seen it. But two different sets with V94 having different players than R310.
First hand knowledge of R310 Butterfinger overprints by collectors told us that the overprint was displayed with the box of prints at the back standing up. That is why the ad is on the top not the bottom. Very unlikely that the entire set of Butterfingers was printed on different stock and overprinted with Butterfinger ad. Just no need. And I just dont understand weather or not there is a Ruth Butterfinger overprint relates to General gum issuing R310 pictures. Which are not in fact 8x10.
The argument that there is nothing that identified butterfinger on the card could be made for many card issues. Wide pens Fine pens R311..... the list is extensive but what you dont offer is proof that General Gum or any other US company issued R310s. In fact given that Curtiss was such a large candy manufacturer I consider it very unlikely that any other candy or gum company would or could offer the same premiums at the same time as Curtiss. Who most likely held an exclusive license for the set.
You offer that they could have along with a few inferences and some twisted logic like " for a long time V94 was called Canadian Butterfingers... and the Acc attributed them to William patterson ( another large Canadian candy maker) This was easily disproved by the fact that Butterfingers were not sold in Canada. Facts that led to changes in how they were cataloged.
Again no facts listed by you prove that General gum issued R310's. But please post the V94 Document and the V94 Foxx variation.
|
Indeed, V94 and R310 are completely different sets, but the similarities are just coincidence? Companies sometimes use outside sources to produce product for them. We can't explain everything with 100% certainty.
The V94 "Foxx" you are requesting to see is shown below, along with examples of R310 "Foxx" and "Fox". Again, yes, by itself that proves nothing. With a long list of other facts, it could be a clue.
The document or piece of paper that discusses V94 is also attached for examination.
You're only reasoning for saying this is completely impossible seems to be first hand knowledge. First hand knowledge is great most of the time, but not always. What if the first hand knowledge only had access to a store that sold Butterfingers and no Baseball Gum? What if Baseball Gum was regional and not near your knowledge sources? It's great to have knowledge from someone, but it's hard to ignore all of the facts. This isn't exactly T206 or 1933 Goudey we are talking about here either. Even those sets with mass printings still have secrets.
If "twisted logic" is using a long list of facts to form opinions and draw conclusions, I'm not sure what to say. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. It seems you're pretty concrete with your opinion, and that's perfectly fine. I'm not saying a long list of facts is 100% proof by any stretch. In fact, I'm open to hearing any fact that could sway my opinion and certainly to anything that is absolute and undisputable proof. If we needed 100% proof all of the time, this hobby would be in serious trouble. I am still curious to hear proof that shows R310 was only issued by Butterfinger. Even a couple of clues, beyond first hand knowledge, would be intriguing. That would definitely put an end to any debate if there is 100% proof.