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

[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.

[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.