[bigfanNY]

Time does not permit, at present, the number of times you have been wrong on these threads. So I'll stick with one of your first gems-- "Too much hard work went into The ACC and Sports Collectors Bible and Beckett/ Eckes catalog SCD catalog to just take pot shots at their research."

Lol You make my point for me because this is the second time you have taken my statment out of context by choosing not post my entire statement. It ends with...to just take potshots at their research with nothing more than " why would that be"

Just to be clear it is Fine to add to hobby research but in the end you kinda need some real proof which it is clear you lack. "Why would that be" is a question not an answer. So I stand behind what you call a gem because time so far has proven the statement to be true.

I am the one that bought up that Sterling catalog and earlier referanced Baby ruth gum from Curtiss as source of R310's But as more collectors got together and things like the internet came along it became clear that Butterfinger candy bars were the source of R310's.

Yes lots of cards were sold for a penny with a stick of gum. I have never seen a card set sold TWO STICKS OF GUM FOR A PENNY. That is my point. Yes a bold marketing move but at twice the cost compared to all your competitors. While you are in the process of digging your way out of bankruptcy. But the 2 sticks for a penny goes over your head and you go Na nana na na. Lots of cards were sold with a stick of gum for a penny. Sadly one of your stronger statments. At least there is proof that happened. So much better than there was a big newspaper plant on the same street maybe they printed them....

Please post the proof that your valuable hobby reseach has concluded that Other candy products sold R310's. Anonymous issues tend to lack advertising from a named source which R310's have. If another candy maker sourced R310 pictures it seems likely they would get their own box topper just like butterfinger did to help market the promotion. The way to go from I have 17 weak unsubstantiated theories to relevent hobby research is to post some proof.

Should we all just take your word that you have researched this very better than all them other guys and revert back to how it was in the late 1970's because Trey so smart and Trey got questions. Starting and finishing with "Why would that be" powerful stuff my brother.

but still no proof. Still no proof. The truth counts. So proof is important. So if you have it please post it.