To your first point weather it is an easy leap a moderate leap or as You say a Great leap, It is a leap that has no supporting documentation. So its not research its a guess. If at some point your continued research uncovers a shread of proof please post it.
Your second point is just sad. You say that the Butterfinger overprints are not proof that Butterfinger issued R310's exclusively ( A weak point with no proof but it could be possible) but you go on to say that the Butterfinger overprints do not offer proof that R310's were issued with Butterfingers. If that is what you believe everyone is entitled to an opinion.
But given that I purchased 2 seperate collections in 2 seperate states that contained toppers and R310's together. And both original collectors related rhat they did indeed buy butterfingers to get the R310's I belive that Yes Butterfinger candy bars had to be purchased in order to receive an R310 at multiple candy stores in the US. And I was not the first or the only collector to tie these together.
In any case the tie between Butterfinger candy bars and R310's is documented to my satisfaction. That you doubt it is as I said is just sad. Given the lack of any real proof to your hypothesis I wonder why you shout so long and hard.
Coming on Net54 with a 17 point hypothesis claiming that you have proof of the fact that R310's could have maybe been issued by someone other than Butterfinger. You had to expect that someone would ask you to actually provide some real proof of your claim. Well given that you dont believe R310's were ever issued with Butterfingers maybe you thought everyone should take you at your word. Since you did claim to have done exhaustive research.
Oh regarding your research if you read the ENTIRE write up from the Curtis candy Museum it took 15 years for Otto to pay off his creditors. 1934 was not a year of tremendous growth it was the depression. Part if real research is reading all of the story not just the parts that taken out of context allign with your unproven theory.
|