Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfanNY
I am sorry I read your post to read that V94 had a Foxx Variation. ( you did use the word Variation) . For clarity only one Version of Foxx the correct spelling is known for V94 but there is a Variation in the R310 set.
I reference First hand knowledge for only one small fact that the Overprints were used displaying the box of R310's
The fact that Curtiss candy held a license to distribute R310's is the fact I rely on for my opinion.it is very unlikely General gum in Chicago could or would licence the same set. And in 87 years no proof has surfaced that General gum or anyone else licensed R310's.
Again for clarity Ruth exists in the set because a company had a licence to issue a set of Baseball subjects. Which is very different than obtaining a license to use Babe Ruths likeness on Advertising and as premium for you ad campaign.
|
That's a great point about the licensing. I've never seen a copy of the Curtiss licensing agreement. I didn't know a copy was available, it would be interesting to read it. If you assume(work with me here) the item being discussed is genuine, then General Gum's address is the same as a Curtiss Candy address in Chicago. It is known that Curtiss had controlling interest in at least one other company and I'm guessing more. I'm sure there could be dots connected with some solid research, and a little luck, if the item continues to look authentic.
Anyhow, it's been a fun discussion. I think I'm about done talking about R310 for now.
Patiently waiting for Paul's black light test now.