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

[irishdenny]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Good catch on that.

Someone with experience emailed me about that stating:

"2) turning Ruth around and making him a right-handed batter is exactly the kind of thing a graphic designer in 1934 would do, to make the image work with his/her design - but also exactly the kind of detail that a forger would NOT do - I think a forger would turn it around."

One of the 1st Attributes of this piece that I noticed also...

I think it's Very Much More Likely to be Authentic...

It's All about the Paper imho...
If the Paper is Proved to be of the time period
Then the Ink will follow!

Tuff to fake the Paper ~

[drcy]

I think it is the other way around. You examine the ink first, then the stock. After all, one can print or forge an autograph on old stock.

However, it's not an either/or, and, of course, you examine both.

If I had the item in person I would be looking at the printing through a microscope. Paul provided me with large closeups, that allowed me to examine the printing. When people send me digital microscopic images-- and there are digital microscopes that allow you to take images--, I can examine the images as if the item were in person.

Identifying Antique Commercial Printing Processes, And the Basics of Authenticating Antique and Art Prints

[bigfanNY]

Unfortunately we live in a time where forgers fake bats using old wood in a barn with old equipment. Faking paper is less expensive than faking wood. Old stock printed on an old machine and you have a license to print money.
In 1934 General Gum of Chicago issued a non sport set of "Funnies" the set was well documented. How likely is it that General Gum issues a series of 8x10's along with Baseball Gum and nobody picks up on it? The ACC , The Sports Collectors Bible, Sterling, Beckett/ Eckes, SCD. Nobody has a record. This is not some small Dog food outfit. This is a Large Candy Manufacturer in Chicago. And with the Dog food issue there were ads in local papers advertising the series. This is Chicago lots of papers lots of ads....any about this series?
And if it was found with a large collection of Yankee Letters and Contracts...Where are they?
How many red flags dose there have to be? How many signs hang in dens that are fantasy pieces printed on tin and aged. They usually come with a great story of how flea market sellers dad took it home from the local hardware store on main st. But Grandma left it out in the garage where it rusted...
it is just so so easy to find General gum non sports cards from 1934, it shouldn't be this hard to find a baseball issue from the same manufacturer.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

Unfortunately we live in a time where forgers fake bats using old wood in a barn with old equipment. Faking paper is less expensive than faking wood. Old stock printed on an old machine and you have a license to print money.
In 1934 General Gum of Chicago issued a non sport set of "Funnies" the set was well documented. How likely is it that General Gum issues a series of 8x10's along with Baseball Gum and nobody picks up on it? The ACC , The Sports Collectors Bible, Sterling, Beckett/ Eckes, SCD. Nobody has a record. This is not some small Dog food outfit. This is a Large Candy Manufacturer in Chicago. And with the Dog food issue there were ads in local papers advertising the series. This is Chicago lots of papers lots of ads....any about this series?
And if it was found with a large collection of Yankee Letters and Contracts...Where are they?
How many red flags dose there have to be? How many signs hang in dens that are fantasy pieces printed on tin and aged. They usually come with a great story of how flea market sellers dad took it home from the local hardware store on main st. But Grandma left it out in the garage where it rusted...
it is just so so easy to find General gum non sports cards from 1934, it shouldn't be this hard to find a baseball issue from the same manufacturer.

The lack of prior info or cataloging on the set is hardly determinative. How many sets remain unknown as to manufacturer still today? R315 and W517 are from the same era and yet their origins remain unsettled. M101-4 Sporting News were not known for more than 40 years after issuance, and Famous & Barr 15 years or so after that. New discoveries or clarifications are uncovered from time to time.

"How likely is it that General Gum issues a series of 8x10's along with Baseball Gum and nobody picks up on it?" Well, let's look at what are classified as P4 pins. Apparently, they were classified by Burdick as an anonymous issue, and so too in the Sports Collector's Bible. Yet for years they have been called Cracker Jack pins, and are still graded as such. But around ten years ago or so, an advertising poster surfaced that shows they were distributed with Button Gum, along with non-sports subjects. The manufacturer of Button Gum was General Gum, Inc. of Chicago-- the same outfit identified in the OP's display piece. Here's an OC story on the topic:
https://www.oldcardboard.com/eNews/2...eNews159.htm#2

So whether or not you consider it "likely", it has happened before.

[oldeboo]

The Button Gum connection is interesting as in pertains to General Gum and what has widely been referred to as Cracker Jack pins. A box topper pops up years later and all of a sudden the whole story of an item changes. Great sources in the hobby have been wrong from time to time due to simply not having enough information.

There are newspaper ads for General Gum products like "Funnies", "Button Gum", and "Movie Gum"? That would certainly say something about the marketing campaign of General Gum if all of those existed. It would be interesting to see those.

The seller does have a few letters listed from the Yankees that originated from the 1920's and appear to be genuine. Obviously there is no direct connection, but they could speak for storage conditions if they were in the same collection for many years. They are not in the greatest condition and exhibit staining as well. Of course different types of paper age in different ways, so even in similar storage conditions they won't look exactly the same. Does anyone believe that these items below could have been stored in a similar environment in the same collection for many years?

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

Every thread needs a little Kramer....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GrnjRJG32g

[Hankphenom]

Can't wait for that black light to get there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYgRVMxjLhc

[chadeast]

Just a reminder that non-fluorescence will not be conclusive either way. Lots of modern paper & inks do not fluoresce, and it is trivial to select ones that don't fluoresce, or use old stock, if you care to do so. Optical brighteners tend to give paper a bluish tint, which can disrupt the intended hues of a particular image, so there is plenty of paper available without brighteners for those who desire it, such as artists. If it does fluoresce though, that is definitive proof that the materials are not of the proposed period.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Can't wait for that black light to get there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYgRVMxjLhc

Haha....tracking showing it's supposed to arrive at my PO tomorrow. Hopefully out for delivery then as well.

[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.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by chadeast

Just a reminder that non-fluorescence will not be conclusive either way. Lots of modern paper & inks do not fluoresce, and it is trivial to select ones that don't fluoresce, or use old stock, if you care to do so. Optical brighteners tend to give paper a bluish tint, which can disrupt the intended hues of a particular image, so there is plenty of paper available without brighteners for those who desire it, such as artists. If it does fluoresce though, that is definitive proof that the materials are not of the proposed period.

Yes. No optical brighteners is supporting evidence not proof an item is old. Though probably 90+ percent of modern reprints and counterfeits will fluoresce brightly with UV.

While one test or quality can identify a card as fake or a reprint, authentication involves considering a variety of tests, qualities and information.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by drcy

...While one test or quality can identify a card as fake or a reprint, authentication involves considering a variety of tests, qualities and information.

This pearl of wisdom is applicable across the entire hobby. It applies to numerous other fields, as well.

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by 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 foPrmed here, but let's base them off of FACTS.

You understand that V94's and R310's are seperate sets. Licensed and sold by 2 seperate companies in two seperate countries. As such one would expect differences. And given that they were sold in different markets the Marketing was again probably differant. I do not know how they were displayed but a topper like used by Butterfinger might not have worked. To my knowledge the Foxx variation has not been confirmed. Please post a picture if you have one. As for the V94 Document please post a picture I have never seen it. But two different sets with V94 having different players than R310.
First hand knowledge of R310 Butterfinger overprints by collectors told us that the overprint was displayed with the box of prints at the back standing up. That is why the ad is on the top not the bottom. Very unlikely that the entire set of Butterfingers was printed on different stock and overprinted with Butterfinger ad. Just no need. And I just dont understand weather or not there is a Ruth Butterfinger overprint relates to General gum issuing R310 pictures. Which are not in fact 8x10.
The argument that there is nothing that identified butterfinger on the card could be made for many card issues. Wide pens Fine pens R311..... the list is extensive but what you dont offer is proof that General Gum or any other US company issued R310s. In fact given that Curtiss was such a large candy manufacturer I consider it very unlikely that any other candy or gum company would or could offer the same premiums at the same time as Curtiss. Who most likely held an exclusive license for the set.
You offer that they could have along with a few inferences and some twisted logic like " for a long time V94 was called Canadian Butterfingers... and the Acc attributed them to William patterson ( another large Canadian candy maker) This was easily disproved by the fact that Butterfingers were not sold in Canada. Facts that led to changes in how they were cataloged.
Again no facts listed by you prove that General gum issued R310's. But please post the V94 Document and the V94 Foxx variation.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by 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.

Thanks for the concise summary Trey. It lays it out well.

Jonathan,

Yes, I became familiar with the Ruth and Curtiss Company legal dispute, oh, about 35 years ago. So why haven’t you answered the question– if Butterfinger and only Butterfinger sold the R310 pictures, why is Ruth in the set? You have basically said that the OP’s ad piece could not be real because Ruth would never have allowed his picture to serve as the mail-in premium on account of his feud with Curtiss. Yet there he is in what you call the Butterfinger set, one of the Curtiss Company’s best performers. How do you explain this inconsistency?

And as for the term “boxtoppers”, I do not know that these overprint, cardboard versions of the R310 pictures were for certain placed in/on the box or whether instead they were dropped off by salesman to be used as counter or window display pieces. If you are certain then we will use your term. I am unaware of any newspaper or other advertising from the time where Butterfinger promotes the pictures–the only evidence we have that they did is these cardboard overprint pieces, which do not tell us how many to collect.

And sure, I understand that these ad overprints were not intended to be collected separately at the time, and yes the paper shortage occasioned by WWII impacted what has survived, but I find those explanations unsatisfactory. There are only 17 of 65 subjects known to have these Butterfinger ads. If as you say you at one time collected the set, then you know that there are multiples, and I mean a dozen or so for sure, of certain players like Bob O’Farrell and Tex Carleton. I stopped tracking them years ago but I am confident in saying that each of the 17 except maybe Gehrig has several copies known. It collides with the laws of probability, IMHO, to say that no examples survived for 3/4 of the subjects but that a dozen or so copies can be found for each of the rest. Put differently, it is hard to explain how there are probably 200 or so of these advertising overprints known but all of them are of 17 subjects, with ZERO known for the rest. While some more may surface in the coming years, it still butts with common sense to say that all 65 had the overprint and it is simply fate and the sands of time that took most of them out of existence. It is far more likely that not all 65 had the overprint in the first place, and if you accept that to be true, then there remains the question of whether all 65 pictures of R310 were in fact put out by Butterfinger. Maybe, maybe not.

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

You understand that V94's and R310's are seperate sets. Licensed and sold by 2 seperate companies in two seperate countries. As such one would expect differences. And given that they were sold in different markets the Marketing was again probably differant. I do not know how they were displayed but a topper like used by Butterfinger might not have worked. To my knowledge the Foxx variation has not been confirmed. Please post a picture if you have one. As for the V94 Document please post a picture I have never seen it. But two different sets with V94 having different players than R310.
First hand knowledge of R310 Butterfinger overprints by collectors told us that the overprint was displayed with the box of prints at the back standing up. That is why the ad is on the top not the bottom. Very unlikely that the entire set of Butterfingers was printed on different stock and overprinted with Butterfinger ad. Just no need. And I just dont understand weather or not there is a Ruth Butterfinger overprint relates to General gum issuing R310 pictures. Which are not in fact 8x10.
The argument that there is nothing that identified butterfinger on the card could be made for many card issues. Wide pens Fine pens R311..... the list is extensive but what you dont offer is proof that General Gum or any other US company issued R310s. In fact given that Curtiss was such a large candy manufacturer I consider it very unlikely that any other candy or gum company would or could offer the same premiums at the same time as Curtiss. Who most likely held an exclusive license for the set.
You offer that they could have along with a few inferences and some twisted logic like " for a long time V94 was called Canadian Butterfingers... and the Acc attributed them to William patterson ( another large Canadian candy maker) This was easily disproved by the fact that Butterfingers were not sold in Canada. Facts that led to changes in how they were cataloged.
Again no facts listed by you prove that General gum issued R310's. But please post the V94 Document and the V94 Foxx variation.

Indeed, V94 and R310 are completely different sets, but the similarities are just coincidence? Companies sometimes use outside sources to produce product for them. We can't explain everything with 100% certainty.

The V94 "Foxx" you are requesting to see is shown below, along with examples of R310 "Foxx" and "Fox". Again, yes, by itself that proves nothing. With a long list of other facts, it could be a clue.

The document or piece of paper that discusses V94 is also attached for examination.

You're only reasoning for saying this is completely impossible seems to be first hand knowledge. First hand knowledge is great most of the time, but not always. What if the first hand knowledge only had access to a store that sold Butterfingers and no Baseball Gum? What if Baseball Gum was regional and not near your knowledge sources? It's great to have knowledge from someone, but it's hard to ignore all of the facts. This isn't exactly T206 or 1933 Goudey we are talking about here either. Even those sets with mass printings still have secrets.

If "twisted logic" is using a long list of facts to form opinions and draw conclusions, I'm not sure what to say. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. It seems you're pretty concrete with your opinion, and that's perfectly fine. I'm not saying a long list of facts is 100% proof by any stretch. In fact, I'm open to hearing any fact that could sway my opinion and certainly to anything that is absolute and undisputable proof. If we needed 100% proof all of the time, this hobby would be in serious trouble. I am still curious to hear proof that shows R310 was only issued by Butterfinger. Even a couple of clues, beyond first hand knowledge, would be intriguing. That would definitely put an end to any debate if there is 100% proof.

[nolemmings]

Thanks again Trey. I moved/copied my last post to the Butterfinger thread, as I think I have hijacked this thread too much already. The genuineness of the OP's ad piece is really what's at issue here, and I'm sure many are waiting for info on that moreso than a theoretical discussion of R310.

Again, I hope Paul's piece turns out to be the real deal. Good luck!

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Thanks again Trey. I moved/copied my last post to the Butterfinger thread, as I think I have hijacked this thread too much already. The genuineness of the OP's ad piece is really what's at issue here, and I'm sure many are waiting for info on that moreso than a theoretical discussion of R310.

Again, I hope Paul's piece turns out to be the real deal. Good luck!

Very true, and agree.

As a side note to the obvious, the burden of proof here is to show that the R310 set was released by Butterfinger exclusively. Without that, the main options in regards to the discussion of this item and connection to a known issue(R310) would be some form of either possible, probable, or likely. We've seen nothing to say Baseball Gum could NOT be connected to R310. So as it pertains to the discussion of this item, we are still at least at possible at a very bare minimum.

Again, going back to the item. It's a possible clue to the item. If it continues to be deemed genuine, it might not even be related to R310. There is that outside chance.

[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.

[oldeboo]

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.

[Shoeless Moe]

"Regular Light On" - "Light Off/Blacklight On" - Front

[Shoeless Moe]

"Regular Light On" - "Light Off/Blacklight On" - Back

[chadeast]

That looks like a black hole of non-fluorescence. How about the front? EDIT: never mind, I see it now. If it is modern, someone took the time to avoid all optical brighteners in their efforts on both the paper stock and inks.

[Shoeless Moe]

Sorry, when I first posted they were sideways, you should see both front and back now.

Appears to be genuine. Good deal for you. Congrats.

[oldeboo]

Black light test...check

[drcy]

As noted, the black light test is a test (that this item passed, and the item had to pass) but not in and of itself proof.

The back of the stock obviously looks old, even from the photos, so the only question was if the front was another layer pasted to it-- which chances are would fluoresce.
While the test in and of itself is not proof of authenticity, I would imagine that 90+ percent of reprints/modern would fluoresce brightly. Meaning, yes, it is possible for a reprint or fake to not fluoresce, but most will be identified by the blacklight.

Also, as already noted, I looked at closeups of the printing-- why I made my original opinion-- and this item was made with the period and no longer commercially used printing process. If someone were to ask me, I can give them one of the images and explain what details led to me coming to that conclusion. ​

As I already said, authentication involves looking at a variety of information. However, the number one thing I look at is the printing. Antique commercial items such as this were made with specific, and no longer commercially used, printing processes that can be identified under microscopic or enlarged image examination.

I told Paul in PM that I assumed the item would pass the black light test, and it did.

While the funky staining on the front made me too wonder when I first saw the image, I don't think that's at all issue. If, as someone proposed, someone went through the elaborate process of getting an old printer (How this would be done, I don't know, and the printing would cost a lot more than the price of the ad, and would only be financially feasible if you printed hundreds of them) and old optical brighteners-free stock, they wouldn't then fake tone & age it in such an obviously funky way.

I didn't have the advantage of a close up but was willing to bet it was authentic. That weathering/paper fading on the back alone is very, very hard to replicate. It's layered in it's fading meaning it appears to have been stored between other period documents for a long period of time. The acids from the papers more than likely created it and not light. The printed lettering at top also appeared to show or bleed through just a little which told me it wasn't made from two substrates. From the close up I could see here it appeared to not have any halftone dot for sure but would have loved to have seen a closer pic of the printing. Hard to replicate that early printing. Most one and two color work was Lithography or Letterpress back in the day and the surface is unmistakable in it's finish and texture. It's a great piece for sure.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Wimberleycardcollector

I didn't have the advantage of a close up but was willing to bet it was authentic. That weathering/paper fading on the back alone is very, very hard to replicate. It's layered in it's fading meaning it appears to have been stored between other period documents for a long period of time. The acids from the papers more than likely created it and not light. The printed lettering at top also appeared to show or bleed through just a little which told me it wasn't made from two substrates. From the close up I could see here it appeared to not have any halftone dot for sure but would have loved to have seen a closer pic of the printing. Hard to replicate that early printing. Most one and two color work was Lithography or Letterpress back in the day and the surface is unmistakable in it's finish and texture. It's a great piece for sure.

The only way to make it financially feasible to print one would be if it's a computer/digital print. Which it most definitely is not.

For those old Ted Williams Root Beer litho signs, for example, there are many of them all over the internet. You have to print many of them to make up for the upfront production costs. That's why when you see an antique tobacco sign on eBay you do a google search to see if there are many more on the internet to see if it was reprinted.

Originally Posted by drcy

The only way to make it financially feasible to print one would be if it's a computer/digital print. Which it most definitely is not.

For those old Ted Williams Root Beer litho signs, for example, there are many of them all over the internet. You have to print many of them to make up for the upfront production costs. That's why when you see an antique tobacco sign on eBay you do a google search to see if there are many more on the internet to see if it was reprinted.

I've been working in the printing industry for over 30 years so I totally get where you are coming from.

[drcy]

I looked at the fineartamerica site, and most of the "antique" advertising stuff appears to be reprints of known original/authentic items. If there are fantasy designs, I didn't see any.

[Hankphenom]

Kudos to you, Paul, for taking a chance (outside at the time, especially given the bidding) this might be good, which the consensus here certainly seems to conclude. I hope we get the chance to see what it does in a high-profile sports auction. And since there's only one--or maybe two, the image of another presumably used to make the fantasy items--should we suppose this was some kind of proof and never put into production? What's the size, by the way, and why was it assumed to be a box cover rather than a store display of some kind? Despite the considerable evidence to the contrary outlined in this thread, count me as remaining on the skeptical side, if much less certain of that now.

[Shoeless Moe]

Hey Hank, thanks, yah it appears to be authentic and vintage, but yes the question remains on the Offer itself. Was there really such a Promo, was this a prototype that never materialized? If so, what was the reason, Ruth/Walsh? Bad deal on the Gum offer? Unless someone can uncover something that part could remain a mystery.

If the offer was scrapped before it came to light then good chance it was never out there in any publication. Or did it get published, then pulled? Or did it run? Inquiring minds want to know.

I am going to get a subscription to Newspapers.com soon and check relentlessly, but who knows if I'll find anything. Good chance others on the board already looked and found nothing. One prominent member of Net54 who has not chimed in on the thread, but has emailed me is looking as well.

Oh and the size, it's surprisingly small. Whenever you look at these pieces they look so big in the pix on Ebay, at Auction Houses, or in these threads, but once you see the dimensions or it in person you see how these old things were so small back then, some scorecards, programs and publications are like that too.

But yes approx. 6" x 9".

[bigfanNY]

If you look closely at the bottom right and left of this photo you can see the same tabs as the OP piece.