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

[jerseygary]

I posted this in the thread on the Memorabilia side as well:

I've followed this thread closely. I am a graphic designer and have studied the history of my profession over the years and an somewhat familiar with the way things were printed and made to work through the decades. Without seeing this piece in person, it's impossible for me to make a conclusion when it comes to the way it was printed.

I also create "period correct" props for movies and TV shows. I know from my own work that it is very easy for a trained person to make a modern piece look and feel "old" until it is thoroughly examined up close. I just did a group of circa 1933 cardboard soft drink, tobacco and candy display signs for a movie that is being filmed right now. Between my designs which use 1933-correct typefaces and colors and the prop master or set decorator who artificially aged the pieces on set, you would be hard pressed to say one way of the other if they were authentic or not until you have it in hand.

A few years ago I was asked by a major auction house to give my opinion on an incredibly large collection of baseball advertising pieces. This was a one man's entire collection, over 300 pieces ranging from the 1890s to the 1950s. He had amassed them over the previous thirty years. 99% were fake. Some were good fakes, while many were really poor 1980s color copy quality mounted to old cardboard. The old glue had dried out on some and you could actually see the graphics that were underneith on the original cardboard.

One thing that struck me were the sun faded shapes that were present on the backs of many of the fakes. This can't really be faked - but the graphics applied to the fronts can.

I was going both ways until I took a practical look at how a display header would have been used. When I did a model of the sign and tried to make the cut-out tabs work the way they are supposed to, it doesn't add up to me.

Here is my little exhibit to explain:

Screen Shot 2021-06-04 at 12.13.39 PM.jpg

Screen Shot 2021-06-04 at 12.13.58 PM.jpg

Screen Shot 2021-06-04 at 12.14.06 PM.jpg

See what I mean about the graphics and copy being cut off? It kind of defeats the purpose of having a header if you can't read the copy on it. Were there bad designers back in 1935? Absolutely. But a candy company that does many types of products each year that come with displays like this wouldn't have sent this to market designed this way. A competent designer would have designed around the tab problem and included more "empty space" to compensate for the mounting system.

Is this a definitive answer - no, but just more food for thought until someone gets a hold of this thing in real life...

[Hankphenom]

Was the tab method actually used on candy boxes of this era? It seems so clunky and undependable. Wouldn't just putting your graphics on the inside of the top, which would be flipped back in the store to make the display, be a much better way? Not sure I remember ever seeing the tab method on anything, but maybe I just never noticed.

[perezfan]

The tabs could have been used to connect the Header Card to a Floorstand Display or to a shelf channel. We may never know the purpose unless a vintage image surfaces, or more evidence comes to light.

[nolemmings]

I think we now have pretty strong evidence that the R310 pictures were issued with Baseball Gum, lending support for the OP's piece being authentic. From last night's REA auction of 93 R310s, including multiple Ruths and Gehrigs, with a description stating "this group is accompanied by pieces of the original display box. These items were just recently discovered in a Midwest warehouse. Incredibly, our consignor, who was involved in the purchase of the building, rescued all of the material from a large trash bin."

[oldeboo]

Tremendous discovery, thanks for sharing Todd.

That is the missing link, no doubt. R310 was without question connected to General Gum, a Curtiss Candy subsidiary. Curtiss Candy distributed these photos with products beyond just Butterfinger. Calling R310 exclusively a Butterfinger issue is wildly inaccurate. R310 is a Curtiss Candy item.

Curtiss Candy distributed a Movie Stars set around the same time as this Baseball Stars set. Check out the similarities between the Baby Ruth Movie Stars and Butterfinger Baseball Stars store displays. Also, see the similarities between the General Gum boxes.

[nolemmings]

Nice find Trey! Now the mystery deepens with regard to the OP's piece. If the display piece is authentic or reproduced from an authentic example, it remains to be seen what "large mounted picture" of Ruth was sent to the collector who mailed in the 50 wrappers and stamps. Interestingly, this is at approximately the same time as Goudey issued its large easel version of Ruth in its R309-1 and possibly R340 sets. REA auctioned a variation of the R309-1 "card" a few years ago as an R340:
https://robertedwardauctions.com/auc...ium-babe-ruth/
The pose is highly similar to that used on the basic R310 of Ruth. It could be that the mounted photo of Ruth offered by General Gum looks much the same, unless Goudey had some exclusivity rights to use that specific pose. Note that the offer was the same for Goudey and General Gum-- send in 50 wrappers.

It also remains unknown what the gum wrappers looked like that were needed for the redemption offer. They must have had some markings as opposed to being generic glassines, otherwise the company could be accepting competitor's wrappers. Anyway, more questions to be answered another day

[oldeboo]

double post

[oldeboo]

That has been one of my theories as well in regards to the Ruth premium. R309-1 is not branded as a Goudey item. I find that slightly odd. If you didn't know any different, it just looks like a generic item. Goudey also distributed many other premium items during that time such as gloves, hats and balls. They would have been using outside vendors. The R309-1 offer shown below expired at the end of 1933, just before R310 was released. Curtiss Candy may have acquired stock from the same outside vendor that Goudey used. Just a theory and a guess, nothing more.

https://robertedwardauctions.com/auc...-display-sign/

Who has an example of an R309-1 or R340 Ruth in a General Gum envelope?