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

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

If I walked into Hobby Lobby and saw a pillow with an image of a T207 Joe Jackson on it, and 2 years later, I saw a T207 Joe Jackson on eBay and was the winner, and David Cycleback said it was good to go, wouldn't that be crazy? No one thinks it's weird that the piece is already known outside the hobby as we debate on it?

That would be insanely crazy!

(To recap) Almost as crazy as an item that was sold by the truckload by a big box store and millions of people all over the country, both inside the hobby and outside the hobby, saw it, yet not a single person ever resold one, asked about it online, posted a picture of one of the many thousands of items sold by the store, or ever discussed it at all in any capacity. Not one person out of the millions ever said hmm what's the story here, not even someone outside the hobby that wanted to do a little research. Then one magically pops up in an online auction that is different than the only one that can be seen online. The only online image happens to be from a random person who saves images of very rare items and was the only one to have an image of the item that was only viewed 170 times, of which 95%+ were probably from here. Since then, a few mugs and shower curtains were probably ordered. On top of that, some people tend to think it's original to 1934! Some think it's the white whale from the big box store. Meanwhile, others think it was printed in a two car garage by some smooth fellow running a printing press and die press to make this one copy. The odds of even half of the above happening are so slim, but here we are.

This thread has been fun.

[bigfanNY]

Of course there are new items discovered in the Hobby all the time. One of the first copies of the scd I read discussed the Discovery of I think only the second 1948 Leaf Bob Feller.
But R315's and W517's were sold in strips and as singles by numerous small retailers. Many young collectors of the time grew to become lifeling Card collectors and remember them. Like strip issues of the 1920's wide distribution but no clear record of the original source.
All of the issues you discuss are in fact in the ACC and the catalogs that followed. But not Baseball Gum's series of 50... from General gum, in Chicago, in 1934 when their non sport issue was cataloged.
Although a number of the backs for issues similar to M104 were discovered later many were recorded early And most made it into the ACC.
Even p4 pins were recorded and in the catalog (How many Baseball pins have specific pedigrees vs large general issues like P10's ) And look at how many pins have been faked. With alot more effort than running off some small signs.
For the record I don’t belive that there was just one of these printed. Just takes an extra large pair to sell one on Ebay... gonna pop up like weeds at flea markets and Antique fairs. Where things like this are prevalent. And of couse we generally don't discuss fake / Fantasy signs here on Net54 main page, Better to discuss real baseball cards.

[nolemmings]

“All of the issues you discuss are in fact in the ACC and the catalogs that followed. But not Baseball Gum's series of 50... from General gum, in Chicago, in 1934 when their non sport issue was cataloged.”
The pictures ARE catalogued. As R310. They are simply not given attribution as being from more than one source.

You are of course free to believe what you will as to whether these pictures were distributed by General Gum, Inc. However, it remains as fact that the company issued black and white non-sport cards at or near the same time, and issued baseball player drawings on buttons/pins in 1933, showing they had both the wherewithal and interest to generate or participate in the sale of R310.

We KNOW that these same pictures (slightly smaller) were sold with gum, at least most of the same subjects, in Canada. We also know that the manner of sale is extremely similar to what we have here (picture plus one or two sticks of gum for a penny), and the verbiage used in the sales pitches was nearly identical. It is not a stretch by any means, IMHO, to conclude that a gum company in the U.S. could have had a hand in disbursing these same pictures here, particularly one like General Gum, which seems to have owned several sub-brands that made multiple varied attempts to reach kids through pop culture of the time.

I am going to keep an open mind on this. As stated, new discoveries appear periodically that help answer unsolved questions, although they can also raise new ones. It is also prudent to question hobby "knowledge" once in awhile, in the interests of getting it right. For example, why do we still call these 1933 gum buttons 1930 Cracker Jack pins? What evidence is there that Cracker Jack had anything to do with them? And why are V94s called Canadian Butterfinger? Just as a matter of convenience, like calling WWG cards Canadian Goudey? Was Butterfinger even produced or sold in Canada?

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

“All of the issues you discuss are in fact in the ACC and the catalogs that followed. But not Baseball Gum's series of 50... from General gum, in Chicago, in 1934 when their non sport issue was cataloged.”
The pictures ARE catalogued. As R310. They are simply not given attribution as being from more than one source.

You are of course free to believe what you will as to whether these pictures were distributed by General Gum, Inc. However, it remains as fact that the company issued black and white non-sport cards at or near the same time, and issued baseball player drawings on buttons/pins in 1933, showing they had both the wherewithal and interest to generate or participate in the sale of R310.

We KNOW that these same pictures (slightly smaller) were sold with gum, at least most of the same subjects, in Canada. We also know that the manner of sale is extremely similar to what we have here (picture plus one or two sticks of gum for a penny), and the verbiage used in the sales pitches was nearly identical. It is not a stretch by any means, IMHO, to conclude that a gum company in the U.S. could have had a hand in disbursing these same pictures here, particularly one like General Gum, which seems to have owned several sub-brands that made multiple varied attempts to reach kids through pop culture of the time.

I am going to keep an open mind on this. As stated, new discoveries appear periodically that help answer unsolved questions, although they can also raise new ones. It is also prudent to question hobby "knowledge" once in awhile, in the interests of getting it right. For example, why do we still call these 1933 gum buttons 1930 Cracker Jack pins? What evidence is there that Cracker Jack had anything to do with them? And why are V94s called Canadian Butterfinger? Just as a matter of convenience, like calling WWG cards Canadian Goudey? Was Butterfinger even produced or sold in Canada?

Butterfinger chocolate bars were never offered in Canada, from what I know (unless imported by a specialty shop).
We have always had what I would call the more superior tasting Crispy Crunch by Cadbury, which, incidentally, was available at one point in the US.

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

“All of the issues you discuss are in fact in the ACC and the catalogs that followed. But not Baseball Gum's series of 50... from General gum, in Chicago, in 1934 when their non sport issue was cataloged.”
The pictures ARE catalogued. As R310. They are simply not given attribution as being from more than one source.

You are of course free to believe what you will as to whether these pictures were distributed by General Gum, Inc. However, it remains as fact that the company issued black and white non-sport cards at or near the same time, and issued baseball player drawings on buttons/pins in 1933, showing they had both the wherewithal and interest to generate or participate in the sale of R310.

We KNOW that these same pictures (slightly smaller) were sold with gum, at least most of the same subjects, in Canada. We also know that the manner of sale is extremely similar to what we have here (picture plus one or two sticks of gum for a penny), and the verbiage used in the sales pitches was nearly identical. It is not a stretch by any means, IMHO, to conclude that a gum company in the U.S. could have had a hand in disbursing these same pictures here, particularly one like General Gum, which seems to have owned several sub-brands that made multiple varied attempts to reach kids through pop culture of the time.

I am going to keep an open mind on this. As stated, new discoveries appear periodically that help answer unsolved questions, although they can also raise new ones. It is also prudent to question hobby "knowledge" once in awhile, in the interests of getting it right. For example, why do we still call these 1933 gum buttons 1930 Cracker Jack pins? What evidence is there that Cracker Jack had anything to do with them? And why are V94s called Canadian Butterfinger? Just as a matter of convenience, like calling WWG cards Canadian Goudey? Was Butterfinger even produced or sold in Canada?

I believe that there is evidence that OPC did distribute V94's. They are a very large candy and gum distributor in Canada. They licensed a number of sports issues in the 1930's.
I apologize for not recognizing that General gum distributed R310's. Of course the series of 50 they referance MUST..MUST be R310's. But isn't the R310 issue 65 cards? And then there is the boxtoppers that say in large red ink that R310's come free with BUTTERFINGERS.
If you have any thing that resembles fact truth evidence that General gum issued a series of 50 ballplayers in 1934 help us all and show it. I am simply pointing out the lack of any fact truth or evidence that has shown itself up until now.
I am all for an open mind and I know my arguments will
Not change many others but the reason I write this is so that this weekend as collectors walk along at their local flea market or antique fair they might think twice before they hand over their hard earned cash to someone selling one of these.
PS if I was looking for a picture or article of an Olympic bike I would start looking at newspapers and bike magazines from that period. If nothing pops I would go the my local Government document repository. (For me that is Firestone library in Princeton). Incredible the stuff you can find there... And I dont call 1933 Gum buttons Cracker Jacks...I call them pr4's

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1zHK_KCjZt...1600/36337.jpg

Above is a link to the General gum button ad.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

I believe that there is evidence that OPC did distribute V94's. They are a very large candy and gum distributor in Canada. They licensed a number of sports issues in the 1930's.
I apologize for not recognizing that General gum distributed R310's. Of course the series of 50 they referance MUST..MUST be R310's. But isn't the R310 issue 65 cards? And then there is the boxtoppers that say in large red ink that R310's come free with BUTTERFINGERS.
If you have any thing that resembles fact truth evidence that General gum issued a series of 50 ballplayers in 1934 help us all and show it. I am simply pointing out the lack of any fact truth or evidence that has shown itself up until now.
I am all for an open mind and I know my arguments will
Not change many others but the reason I write this is so that this weekend as collectors walk along at their local flea market or antique fair they might think twice before they hand over their hard earned cash to someone selling one of these.
PS if I was looking for a picture or article of an Olympic bike I would start looking at newspapers and bike magazines from that period. If nothing pops I would go the my local Government document repository. (For me that is Firestone library in Princeton). Incredible the stuff you can find there... And I dont call 1933 Gum buttons Cracker Jacks...I call them pr4's

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1zHK_KCjZt...1600/36337.jpg

Above is a link to the General gum button ad.

I appreciate your trying to discourage collectors from running to flea markets to pick up fake posters or display pieces. This really has little or no relevance to whether the actual pictures were issued by General Gum.

I never said the R310's MUST be a General Gum product, only that there is evidence they could have been. You seem to make much of the fact that the ad spoke only to 50 subjects when there are 65 believed to be in the R310 set. There are many pre-war sets that incorrectly advertise the total number that make up the set. And BTW, where does it say on the Butterfinger ads that there are 50, 65 or any number available? In fact, only seventeen of these so-called "box-toppers" are known. Should we assume that the other 48 simply have not been discovered yet, 87 years later? Maybe Butterfinger only produced a small number of subjects.

For that matter, you have claimed that the bad blood between Babe Ruth and the Curtiss company forecloses any likelihood that the Ruth premium would have been available through General Gum if it was affiliated with Curtiss. Then why is the Ruth picture found in the "regular" R310 set if that is a Butterfinger product proudly and widely advertised by the Curtiss company?
Ruth said OK use my picture for your set but no way on the premium because I hate you?

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I appreciate your trying to discourage collectors from running to flea markets to pick up fake posters or display pieces. This really has little or no relevance to whether the actual pictures were issued by General Gum.

I never said the R310's MUST be a General Gum product, only that there is evidence they could have been. You seem to make much of the fact that the ad spoke only to 50 subjects when there are 65 believed to be in the R310 set. There are many pre-war sets that incorrectly advertise the total number that make up the set. And BTW, where does it say on the Butterfinger ads that there are 50, 65 or any number available? In fact, only seventeen of these so-called "box-toppers" are known. Should we assume that the other 48 simply have not been discovered yet, 87 years later? Maybe Butterfinger only produced a small number of subjects.

For that matter, you have claimed that the bad blood between Babe Ruth and the Curtiss company forecloses any likelihood that the Ruth premium would have been available through General Gum if it was affiliated with Curtiss. Then why is the Ruth picture found in the "regular" R310 set if that is a Butterfinger product proudly and widely advertised by the Curtiss company?
Ruth said OK use my picture for your set but no way on the premium because I hate you?

Your right you never said they Must be R310's that were issued by General Gum, You said that 1934 General gum cards "Are" cataloged as R310's. Despite no facts to back your claim ( you mention some evidence but don't provide it).
I dont make much if the fact that there are 65 Subjects in the R310 set ( plus variations) there simply (And I will use your word) Are.
A little reseach will show that according to reports from the time there was bad blood between Curtis and Ruth. If you take the time... and no one says you have to, you can read about it for yourself. It is a fairly famous copyright/ Licensing case.
As for licensing my understanding is compinies or venders that sell card sets obtain the license. Then they sell the product in this case a set of cards to Curtis candy. Very different from Curtis approching Ruth or Christy Walsh and negotiating a license. My first experience with this sort licensing was 1977 Discs. One vender (MSA) gets licensing then sells discs to many companies. The M104 set was licensed in a similar fashion.
As for the Box toppers ( not sure why you call them so called Boxtoppers.. but it certinly has a dramatic effect) they were clearly a display item ment to be thrown away. How many goudry window sheets are around. Again ment to be thrown away and then there was the paper drives during the war. I have seen pictures of 1952 Topps displays, plentiful in 1952 but very scarce today. No real mystery aside from, why so many Cardinals.
So I am still unclear what Facts Truth or Evidence there is to support the claim that R310's were issued by General gum? And as You cleary stated that is the point.
J

[oldeboo]

What FACTS show that ALL of the R310s were released by Curtiss/BUTTERFINGER?

Some FACTS that we know:
FACT 1. V94 O-Pee-Chee product was named BASEBALL GUM
FACT 2. Box topper from OP shows a General Gum product named BASEBALL GUM
FACT 3. Box topper from OP shows the same address for General Gum as one of the properties that Curtiss Candy operated
FACT 4. Box topper from OP describes 8x10 pictures which are, perhaps, coincidentally the same size as R310
FACT 5. Not even ONE overprinted BUTTERFINGER R310 has been found that exists in the V94 BASEBALL GUM set (wonder why that would be)
FACT 6. More R310 subjects exist than V94 BASEBALL GUM subjects (again, wonder why that would be)
FACT 7. General Gum had product names that were very, well, general, such as Movie Gum and Button Gum
FACT 8. It would be much more likely for an overprinted BUTTERFINGER to exist than a standard box topper ad which would be more disposable. It's not a stretch to say store owners would have given away used or extra BUTTERFINGER ads when new orders came in. It's also not a stretch to say the BUTTERFINGER overprint is different than a standard store ad/box topper because it so closely resembles the actual product. (call that an opinion if you wish)
FACT 9. Only a "FOXX" variation has been found in the V94 BASEBALL GUM set
FACT 10. There is a "FOXX" and "FOX" variation found in R310
FACT 11. Babe Ruth has not been confirmed with a BUTTERFINGER(Curtiss Candy) overprint
FACT 12. Wonderful hobby resources, such as the ACC, have been wrong before or incomplete
FACT 13. For a long time people in the hobby incorrectly called V94...BUTTERFINGER (sound familiar?)
FACT 14. The standard R310 has nothing printed on it to clearly identify brand
FACT 15. There have been 65 black and white photos printed on roughly 8x10 thin stock identified, with NO branding, that have been categorized as R310
FACT 16. An O-PEE-CHEE BASEBALL GUM document describes "A large 6.5x8.5 picture of your favorite baseball star"
FACT 17. The OP item describes "A large 8x10 picture of your favorite baseball star"

That's a few to start...

Is it significant that there have been plenty of overprinted BUTTERFINGERS found, but NONE of them exist in the V94 BASEBALL GUM set?
Yes, and that's an OPINION based on FACTS.

What is the likelihood that a supplemental distribution occurred from another brand that would be identical to the R310 BUTTERFINGERS?
Very high, and that's an OPINION based on FACTS.

I can form a long list of OPINIONS based on FACTS, but I'll just start with the two above.

Really curious to see the FACTS that prove R310 was exclusive to BUTTERFINGER. There are a lot of OPINIONS being formed here, but let's base them off of FACTS.

[CTDean]

Two sites on google mention the 1933-34 General Gum Babe Ruth box lid. Google "General Gum" "Babe Ruth" and scan down. I took a photo of the screen but couldn't get it to upload. Another obscure General Gum issue was R155 Trick cards. The issue had almost no background information until the Robert Edwards Spring 2009 auction. Lot 1532 was a box of 1933 General Gum "Mystery Gum" (no box lid) that brought $26,438.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by CTDean

Two sites on google mention the 1933-34 General Gum Babe Ruth box lid. Google "General Gum" "Babe Ruth" and scan down. I took a photo of the screen but couldn't get it to upload. Another obscure General Gum issue was R155 Trick cards. The issue had almost no background information until the Robert Edwards Spring 2009 auction. Lot 1532 was a box of 1933 General Gum "Mystery Gum" (no box lid) that brought $26,438.

I couldn't find them. How about some links?

[CTDean]

It's there if you want to find it. Again, google "General Gum" with "Babe Ruth". On the first page of results down to 8th result. www.sekaimon.com & 9th result - www.ebay.it. Both links are to foreign sites but you don't have to click on the links to see the General Gum Babe Ruth information.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by CTDean

It's there if you want to find it. Again, google "General Gum" with "Babe Ruth". On the first page of results down to 8th result. www.sekaimon.com & 9th result - www.ebay.it. Both links are to foreign sites but you don't have to click on the links to see the General Gum Babe Ruth information.

Those links are worthless.

[CTDean]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Those links are worthless.

I know the links are old, just reference points on the google search to help you find the General Gum Babe Ruth piece.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by CTDean

I know the links are old, just reference points on the google search to help you find the General Gum Babe Ruth piece.

More help, please.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by CTDean

It's there if you want to find it. Again, google "General Gum" with "Babe Ruth". On the first page of results down to 8th result. www.sekaimon.com & 9th result - www.ebay.it. Both links are to foreign sites but you don't have to click on the links to see the General Gum Babe Ruth information.

That's just the Ebay listing of this item in question.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/36338437797...p2047675.l2557

[steve B]

Originally Posted by oldeboo

That would be insanely crazy!

(To recap) Almost as crazy as an item that was sold by the truckload by a big box store and millions of people all over the country, both inside the hobby and outside the hobby, saw it, yet not a single person ever resold one, asked about it online, posted a picture of one of the many thousands of items sold by the store, or ever discussed it at all in any capacity. Not one person out of the millions ever said hmm what's the story here, not even someone outside the hobby that wanted to do a little research. Then one magically pops up in an online auction that is different than the only one that can be seen online. The only online image happens to be from a random person who saves images of very rare items and was the only one to have an image of the item that was only viewed 170 times, of which 95%+ were probably from here. Since then, a few mugs and shower curtains were probably ordered. On top of that, some people tend to think it's original to 1934! Some think it's the white whale from the big box store. Meanwhile, others think it was printed in a two car garage by some smooth fellow running a printing press and die press to make this one copy. The odds of even half of the above happening are so slim, but here we are.

This thread has been fun.

Most of that might not be as unusual as you think.

Special cards and sets were made for the home shopping channels during the late 80's and early 90's. Nearly all of those are uncataloged and probably mostly forgotten.

Upper deck had a license for yugio cards in the late 90's, and counterfeited their own licensed product to sell to Treat Inc. The original article that covered it didn't include a list of which ones were made, just that they were rare foil ones and were different than the issued cards. Maybe there's a listing in some court document, but who is going looking for it?

Nearly all the unlicensed cards of the 80's-90s were never cataloged in any way.

I have a bike that was used to win a gold medal in a world championship in 1983. I've looked for around 20 years for a photo of the event with no luck at all. Not even a photo of any team, let alone the US team.
(the 1984 olympics TTT and 1986 world track championships team pursuit are almost as tough)

Do I think an ad piece for a promotion done in 1934 could have slipped through the cracks? It's possible.

[Jobu]

It is also possible that this sign was made and sent to Ruth, Walsh, or the team in hopes of convincing Ruth to sign off on a promotion that never happened - perhaps because of the bad blood mentioned. The staple holes/paper could have held a "take a look at this" sort of note.

This type of thing did happen, remember the awesome T206 Wagner strip proof found in Wagner's uniform pants in his attic.