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

[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".