Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfanNY
If General gum were a subsidiary of Curtiss then all you would need is proof that they had a license to issue R310's to state with any certinly that they did. Something like the cardboard R310 Butterfinger box toppers.
But why would Curtiss compete against itself. Especially a key product like the Butterfinger bar? The sign says 2 sticks of gum for a penny plus a card. Sound like something a company trying to dig itself out of bankruptcy would do?
|
As usual, most of what you say is inaccurate and borderline non-sensical.
Curtiss Candy had financial problems throughout 1929, for reasons that were hardly uncommon. Crashes in the commodities and stock markets kicked off the Great Depression–maybe you’ve heard of it.
However, as recounted by those that were there, the decision to forego bankruptcy was made in late 1929, and then: “Once Otto Schnering was given the stamp of approval by his creditors in 1929, he proved he was up to the task of paying off the company’s debts without slowing down its exponential growth. The Butterfinger bar, Curtiss’s second major candy bar smash, kept the factories firing on all cylinders even during the roughest years of the Depression.” See that? Exponential growth, not a company digging itself out of bankruptcy. If you care to read more:
https://www.madeinchicagomuseum.com/...tiss-candy-co/
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.