Quote:
Originally Posted by nolemmings
And who knows what you’re trying to say by commenting on the pricing. Let’s see, who in the early 1930's would be so foolish to package a baseball picture and gum for a penny? The better question is what company did not use that pricing? Heck, it carried into Bowman and Topps decades later, so it was hardly a rash business model. In fact, it seems more likely that kids would splurge a nickel to get multiple sticks of gum they could chew all day and 5 baseball pictures than to pay the same price for a single candy bar gone in fifteen minutes and only one baseball picture.
|
It's just hilarious commentary without question and pretty fun to read. Every point has been completely debunked, then the next guess goes to something more ridiculous. There is proof that General Gum was a subsidiary of Curtiss Candy. Anyone want to guess the amount of gum you could get through Baby Ruth Gum for 1 cent in 1934? There is actual research that has gone into this, and that's completely ignoring the fact that the General Gum store display is the real deal, that can't be legitimately debated. If in some world you're still questioning the General Gum display you are without a doubt questioning the Butterfinger display as well. The Butterfingers have many significant questions around them, no doubt about it.
It's like looking for a penny at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, ain't happenin'.