Babe Ruth General Gum Sign/Display - Black Light PIX added FINALLY

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Haha! Thanks......I'll take 20%.......I'm only at 50% myself....and about 45% of that is due to Trey's input.

Hey, don't blame me for you gaining confidence! I'm not THAT confident.

I admit when I first saw it, I thought no way. The staining looks odd and we've seen this story before. We've all seen the fake Tuxedo's, etc. I'm just not sure I'm ready to say that just because something has strange staining, it means it's not genuine.

Also, I'm not ready to admit that something that was intended to be in a landfill after a few months would be a common item. I just can't imagine items like this would be available by the hundreds today. We're not talking about a 1933 Goudey Ruth here. These were not something that a young kid collected and cherished, then passed down for generations. We are talking about something that a store owner would have absolutely no use for and would throw it in the trash when it was time. I'll even dare to say that there are probably many store advertisements from various companies that have completely vanished. I wouldn't find that too odd.

We're looking at a few, not so terrific, pictures from 2010. I still think it could go either way, but I'm not sure I can call it fake because it's stained and rare.

[Vintagecatcher]

For those of us that have been around for years, there has been many bogus fantasy pieces created to deceive that have had the faded background.

If a piece is authentic there should be sometime of period advertising which describes it.

Voting a big FAT no!

Patrick

[Jobu]

I love the research and feedback that is happening on this one.

I see Trey's argument for this being related to the Butterfinger premiums, but I am still left with a several questions.

1 - I find it a bit odd that they wouldn't reprint the piece with a design change instead of stapling a piece of paper over the top - that paper could be removed and then you have an ad out there for something you won't deliver and people will get mad.

2 - If this was put out there with the bottom left covered up, I am not sure how this promotion works because all that is left showing is an 8x10 of your favorite baseball player and 2 sticks of gum for 1 penny. No mailing instructions, no wrappers, etc. The Ruth premium would have cost 50 wrappers and 5 cents in stamps, and yet according to this, the 8 x 10 premiums almost would have had to have been given away at the point of sale to anyone who bought two sticks of gum for a penny? Doesn't that seem a bit out of line in terms of a promotion? Especially when Butterfinger gave 1 premium away for a 5 cent candy bar. On the other hand, maybe it explains the low quality of the Butterfinger premiums? The 48 Leaf premiums seem like they are on similar paper, but you had to buy an entire box of 1948 Leaf to get one of those (I think).

3 - Has anyone ever heard of a brand name called Baseball Gum?

I am hoping this is real, just enjoying the puzzle.

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by Jobu

I love the research and feedback that is happening on this one.

I see Trey's argument for this being related to the Butterfinger premiums, but I am still left with a several questions.

1 - I find it a bit odd that they wouldn't reprint the piece with a design change instead of stapling a piece of paper over the top - that paper could be removed and then you have an ad out there for something you won't deliver and people will get mad.
Rolling with the assumption that something like this actually existed, I was only throwing out one possibility. How many people have ever walked into a gas station and seen a piece of paper with writing at the cashier's counter? Something like: "Buy 2 Get 1 Free" "Free- Take One" I know I've seen things like that written with a sharpie or pen and this is 2021. Who's to say that didn't happen in 1934? Maybe the shop owner didn't care about the Ruth promo, so he made his own. Maybe he would give a picture for any brand of gum.

2 - If this was put out there with the bottom left covered up, I am not sure how this promotion works because all that is left showing is an 8x10 of your favorite baseball player and 2 sticks of gum for 1 penny. No mailing instructions, no wrappers, etc. The Ruth premium would have cost 50 wrappers and 5 cents in stamps, and yet according to this, the 8 x 10 premiums almost would have had to have been given away at the point of sale to anyone who bought two sticks of gum for a penny? Doesn't that seem a bit out of line in terms of a promotion? Especially when Butterfinger gave 1 premium away for a 5 cent candy bar. On the other hand, maybe it explains the low quality of the Butterfinger premiums? The 48 Leaf premiums seem like they are on similar paper, but you had to buy an entire box of 1948 Leaf to get one of those (I think).
From what I've read, I believe that Butterfinger premiums were indeed given to the customer at the time of purchase. They were so basic and cheaply made that it doesn't seem that strange. A black and white picture on thin paper. This isn't a baseball card with hours and hours of design time and what not. The cost had to of been so low to produce. I guess if you wanted to load up on these images, gum was the way to go. Maybe this gum flopped, then they switched to giving the images with Butterfingers. I don't think that's too strange. You could also go down the rabbit hole that there indeed was a Ruth promo through the mail that occurred. Do we know for certain that the R309-1 Goudey Ruth was made exclusively by/for Goudey? I don't believe it has any Goudey branding on it. Goudey also gave things away like baseball pants and gloves. Lots of companies ran redemption programs for generic items they could get through a vendor.

3 - Has anyone ever heard of a brand name called Baseball Gum?
I haven't, but something interesting about General Gum is that they did sell items like Movie Gum, Button Gum, etc. Baseball Gum fits with the simplicity theme. Maybe they piloted it in a few local stores and it flopped? You would think there would be a wrapper or two floating around.
Again, just wild guesses.

I am hoping this is real, just enjoying the puzzle.
I have no skin in the game, but do find it interesting as well. I don't see any content on the item in question that couldn't be explained. Maybe it was a thoughtful forger that did his homework. He would have put a heck of a lot of effort into producing this for such small gain it seems. Wouldn't we see more if this was a fantasy item? I know I like to see evidence as proof just like anyone else, but it's just wild guesses at this point. Even if this is fantasy land, I've learned a lot about real items that exist. If Paul comes back and says his piece doesn't look right, I'm not certain it's an absolute fantasy. More questions than answers.

comments attached

[perezfan]

Once it is in-hand, blacklighting it will be the biggest "tell".

Pretty simple... If it does not fluoresce, I believe it is indeed authentic.

[chadeast]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Once it is in-hand, blacklighting it will be the biggest "tell".

Pretty simple... If it does not fluoresce, I believe it is indeed authentic.

In my experience, this is by no means a definitive test. there are numerous modern cards and reprints that dont fluoresce.if it does fluoresce, it is modern. If it doesn’t, it could be anything. Not all modern paper stock uses optical brighteners.

[perezfan]

I am leaning towards it being authentic anyway. The black light test would be just another "positive". If this was a repro or fantasy piece, we would likely have seen more of them littering the internet.

Most repros do not have machine-cut "tabs" like that either. They would not go to that level of expense to create a fantasy piece such as this. The cost of doing so would far exceed the price realized.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by oldeboo

Hey, don't blame me for you gaining confidence! I'm not THAT confident.

I admit when I first saw it, I thought no way. The staining looks odd and we've seen this story before. We've all seen the fake Tuxedo's, etc. I'm just not sure I'm ready to say that just because something has strange staining, it means it's not genuine.

Also, I'm not ready to admit that something that was intended to be in a landfill after a few months would be a common item. I just can't imagine items like this would be available by the hundreds today. We're not talking about a 1933 Goudey Ruth here. These were not something that a young kid collected and cherished, then passed down for generations. We are talking about something that a store owner would have absolutely no use for and would throw it in the trash when it was time. I'll even dare to say that there are probably many store advertisements from various companies that have completely vanished. I wouldn't find that too odd.

We're looking at a few, not so terrific, pictures from 2010. I still think it could go either way, but I'm not sure I can call it fake because it's stained and rare.

Yah, I'm not THAT confident either, at best 50/50, and maybe even 51/49 against..........but.......similar to what you are saying REA also says about that about the following in 2020 of a "newly discovered" 1930's Display Piece:

https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=66478

TBD

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Yah, I'm not THAT confident either, at best 50/50, and maybe even 51/49 against..........but.......similar to what you are saying REA also says about that about the following in 2020 of a "newly discovered" 1930's Display Piece: https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=66478 TBD

I assume this is for the "doubleheader coins" set from the 1930s? What a cool piece.

[ruth-gehrig]

I was first loser on the sign and think it's good. If you feel differently once you have it in hand I will be suprised.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by ruth-gehrig

I was first loser on the sign and think it's good. If you feel differently once you have it in hand I will be suprised.

"The losers now will be later to win," Dylan wrote, and I think you're going to be very happy that you weren't involved in this thing.