Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfanNY
Well the obvious difference is an image of an R310 is shown as free with the purchase of Butterfinger. The General gum sign has NO picture of the cards that were offered. Get it...picture of R310 with words that say free with purchase of a Butterfinger. I think that is proof they were tied together.
|
Yes certainly they were somehow, no doubt about it. I'm not arguing that. Now we are on the same page. If it's too much of a leap to think that a Curtiss Candy company that produced gum and made an original store display that mentions 8x10 pictures during the same exact period as R310 is a great leap, so be it. It's also interesting that a lot of the surviving Butterfinger overprints seem to be in really nice condition with not many signs of being used in stores other than a little bit of corner wear. I haven't seen anything in print that screams from the roof that R310 was only distributed by one brand. In fact, I haven't seen anything from period sources on any front. I've seen some R310s that were put on thicker stock with a stamp on it and I've seen an original General Gum store display that mentions 8x10 pictures of baseball stars in 1934. An R310 image with a Butterfinger overprint doesn't prove by itself that Butterfinger distributed these exclusively or even at all, just like the General Gum display doesn't prove they were distributed in that form either. I don't think it's a one or the other situation.
What other 8x10 baseball pictures do you think Curtiss distributed with this General Gum display? Or do you think they never made the 8x10 pictures and intended to make a completely different set than R310 during the same time?
Can't we just sit back and say that there is a chance that General Gum, Butterfinger and possibly Baby Ruth distributed R310?
I don't think there will ever be anything that proves that any of the above didn't distribute R310s. Something could certainly pop up that proves that at least one them did. Again, my reference is to the actual R310 issue that was actually given away. There may be a valid reason why Curtiss chose to leave them anonymous. If it was an exclusive product why wouldn't they have put branding on them? That doesn't add up from a marketing perspective.