Babe Ruth General Gum Sign/Display

[bigfanNY]

To your first point weather it is an easy leap a moderate leap or as You say a Great leap, It is a leap that has no supporting documentation. So its not research its a guess. If at some point your continued research uncovers a shread of proof please post it.
Your second point is just sad. You say that the Butterfinger overprints are not proof that Butterfinger issued R310's exclusively ( A weak point with no proof but it could be possible) but you go on to say that the Butterfinger overprints do not offer proof that R310's were issued with Butterfingers. If that is what you believe everyone is entitled to an opinion.
But given that I purchased 2 seperate collections in 2 seperate states that contained toppers and R310's together. And both original collectors related rhat they did indeed buy butterfingers to get the R310's I belive that Yes Butterfinger candy bars had to be purchased in order to receive an R310 at multiple candy stores in the US. And I was not the first or the only collector to tie these together.
In any case the tie between Butterfinger candy bars and R310's is documented to my satisfaction. That you doubt it is as I said is just sad. Given the lack of any real proof to your hypothesis I wonder why you shout so long and hard.
Coming on Net54 with a 17 point hypothesis claiming that you have proof of the fact that R310's could have maybe been issued by someone other than Butterfinger. You had to expect that someone would ask you to actually provide some real proof of your claim. Well given that you dont believe R310's were ever issued with Butterfingers maybe you thought everyone should take you at your word. Since you did claim to have done exhaustive research.
Oh regarding your research if you read the ENTIRE write up from the Curtis candy Museum it took 15 years for Otto to pay off his creditors. 1934 was not a year of tremendous growth it was the depression. Part if real research is reading all of the story not just the parts that taken out of context allign with your unproven theory.

[oldeboo]

Certainly looks like case closed then. I believe there is a chance General Gum, Butterfinger, and Baby Ruth could have distributed R310 for many reasons. I'll continue to have an open mind if anyone shows anything different. That settles it.

[nolemmings]

Geez, because it took years for Curtiss to pay off its debts, during the Depression, that means business was contracting and no one dared to try selling baseball pictures with gum for a penny. Goudey, Diamond stars, Uncle Jacks, Tattoo Orbit, etc all had it wrong. BTW, before you chide someone on how to read an entire article and not pull things out of context, you may want to look in the mirror.

Time does not permit, at present, the number of times you have been wrong on these threads. So I'll stick with one of your first gems-- "Too much hard work went into The ACC and Sports Collectors Bible and Beckett/ Eckes catalog SCD catalog to just take pot shots at their research."

It has already been shown that the 1960 ACC did not identify these as Butterfingers. What is your answer to that? The first Beckett guide did not list R310, but the third edition did, saying that the premiums came with advertising for Butterfinger OR OTHER CANDY. Why are they referencing other candy if Butterfinger was the exclusive source? Finally, the first Standard Catalog begins its description of R310 with "Cards in this 65-card set were available as a premium from Butterfinger AND OTHER CANDY PRODUCTS". So, if these three oracles of wisdom were unwilling or unable to call R310 as solely a Butterfinger issue, us wannabe researchers are wrong to suggest another provider? What evidence has popped up since these were published to settle the issue that these are Butterfingers and only Butterfingers? Hell, what evidence has popped up since 1934 to show that?
Do you see how your credibility on this topic is lacking?

[drcy]

I have no knowledge or insight on R310s, and barely even noticed the 8x10 photos mention on the ad. I just know that the Ruth ad is vintage and original.

There was various circumstantial and historical evidence surrounding the item, and that I considered, but I determined the ad is original largely on its own physical evidence. The microscopic images Trey sent me were the clincher, having specific microscopic details one would expect from 1930s printing.

The provenance is fairly decent, in that the original seller was a vintage ephemera and antiques seller who would have a feel for what is vintage, and there's no reason to doubt his claim that the ad came with vintage Yankees letters.

What exactly is the item and how it relates to baseball card history is up for debate by others, and not something I've particularly thought about. But the item is original and vintage.

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by drcy

I have no knowledge or insight on R310s, and barely even noticed the 8x10 photos mention on the ad. I just know that the Ruth ad is vintage and original.

There was various circumstantial and historical evidence surrounding the item, and that I considered, but I determined the ad is original largely on its own physical evidence. The microscopic images Trey sent me were the clincher, having specific microscopic details one would expect from 1930s printing.

The provenance is fairly decent, in that the original seller was a vintage ephemera and antiques seller who would have a feel for what is vintage, and there's no reason to doubt his claim that the ad came with vintage Yankees letters.

What exactly is the item and how it relates to baseball card history is up for debate by others, and not something I've particularly thought about. But the item is original and vintage.

Thanks for your excellent input on this. You leave absolutely no doubt about this item and that is really the whole point of this thread.

If someone hasn't looked at the circumstantial and historical evidence around this beyond the authenticity factor, there's nothing wrong with that at all. If someone has looked into it and they can't figure out that 1+1=2 that doesn't change the originality of this General Gum store display.

I'm not sure why someone would be so upset about this original General Gum store display existing that introduces new information to the hobby.

This was a really great find by the OP and it's good to see that it's now back in the hobby and known about.

[nolemmings]

"I have never seen a card set sold TWO STICKS OF GUM FOR A PENNY. That is my point"

1933 Uncle Jacks. Two sticks. And of course, the question is one of weight, not volume, as we do not know how large the pieces were. So no, nothing went over my head.


Maybe you can get together with all of your collector friends to discuss. Maybe now that the Internet is here you can show us one single Butterfinger advertisement or reference that has surfaced since 1934 that makes it "clear" that Butterfinger or even Curtiss was the sole distributor. Actually it would be helpful if you could show a single such advertisement for Butterfinger at all, beyond what are called the boxtoppers that were known from the beginning.
One. Would be nice. Anything.

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

"I have never seen a card set sold TWO STICKS OF GUM FOR A PENNY. That is my point"

1933 Uncle Jacks. Two sticks. And of course, the question is one of weight, not volume, as we do not know how large the pieces were. So no, nothing went over my head.

We should also not forget that an 8x10 image printed on cheap and flimsy paper is really not much of a "card" at all. R310s show no signs of being distributed inside any sort of packaging. For all we know, Baseball Gum could have just been a series of 8x10 baseball pictures sold with ANY two sticks of General Gum branded gum, or heck, maybe even Baby Ruth Gum. Maybe that's why the hobby forefathers mentioned Baby Ruth.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by oldeboo

Thanks for your excellent input on this. You leave absolutely no doubt about this item and that is really the whole point of this thread.

If someone hasn't looked at the circumstantial and historical evidence around this beyond the authenticity factor, there's nothing wrong with that at all. If someone has looked into it and they can't figure out that 1+1=2 that doesn't change the originality of this General Gum store display.

I'm not sure why someone would be so upset about this original General Gum store display existing that introduces new information to the hobby.

This was a really great find by the OP and it's good to see that it's now back in the hobby and known about.

+1. If this piece is genuine, then it is very hard to argue that General Gum did not at least contemplate if not distribute a series of baseball pictures. Maybe this was just a mock-up for a promotion or product that never got off the ground. Then again, maybe not-- the company identified in fact offered similar products (movie star premium large photos) the prior year, and was behind baseball "buttons" around the same time.

In any event, thanks David for the analysis.

[bigfanNY]

Uncle jacks like Goudey contained a piece of gum. That was approximately the size of the card. The picture you show the gum is cracked. Other uncle jack packs exist with uncracked gum. Also note the packaging dose not say comes with two sticks if gum.
Also if you look at authenticated Uncle jack packs the coupon is on the outside of the package. It seems the pack you posted is a fake...again I bow to your thorough research.

[drcy]

I shy away from the term "forensic analysis" as bad autograph "authenticators'" at places like Coaches Corner have given "forensic" a bad connotation in the hobby.

My areas of expertise are ink-and-printing press prints and photographs. Especially with old photographs, I (and everyone else) will have no idea who is in the photo or where it came from. I determine that they are original (or fake or reprint) by examining the physical photograph itself . . . And no one is omniscient and sometimes I don't know.

So saying, "I don't know who this is and where the photo came from, but it is original" is not uncommon. For 90+% of tintypes, the identity and origin of the tintype has been lost in time.

So, not knowing everything or even lots, about a sign and being able to determine it's vintage and original is not at all incompatible.

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

the company identified in fact offered similar products (movie star premium large photos) the prior year
In any event, thanks David for the analysis.

Yeah we should also ignore the fact that Baby Ruth Gum, a sister brand to Movie Gum, was involved in premiums with movie stars too. That certainly means nothing, right?

My hogwash research hasn't looked much into the non-sports stuff yet, admittedly.

I did see this Movie Gum(General Gum) premium shown over on the non-sports affiliate, and it was described as thin with nothing on the back, it has no branding on it. What's the Baby Ruth Gum premium look like?

Can anyone spot any similarities between the Movie Gum(General Gum) premium and an R310?

Border size(if centered)? Color? Aging? Paper? Printing? Ink? Facsimile signature? Branding?

Can anyone spot any similarities?

Is there even one indication that this General Gum movie issue looks similar to R310?

[bigfanNY]

Time does not permit, at present, the number of times you have been wrong on these threads. So I'll stick with one of your first gems-- "Too much hard work went into The ACC and Sports Collectors Bible and Beckett/ Eckes catalog SCD catalog to just take pot shots at their research."

Lol You make my point for me because this is the second time you have taken my statment out of context by choosing not post my entire statement. It ends with...to just take potshots at their research with nothing more than " why would that be"

Just to be clear it is Fine to add to hobby research but in the end you kinda need some real proof which it is clear you lack. "Why would that be" is a question not an answer. So I stand behind what you call a gem because time so far has proven the statement to be true.

I am the one that bought up that Sterling catalog and earlier referanced Baby ruth gum from Curtiss as source of R310's But as more collectors got together and things like the internet came along it became clear that Butterfinger candy bars were the source of R310's.

Yes lots of cards were sold for a penny with a stick of gum. I have never seen a card set sold TWO STICKS OF GUM FOR A PENNY. That is my point. Yes a bold marketing move but at twice the cost compared to all your competitors. While you are in the process of digging your way out of bankruptcy. But the 2 sticks for a penny goes over your head and you go Na nana na na. Lots of cards were sold with a stick of gum for a penny. Sadly one of your stronger statments. At least there is proof that happened. So much better than there was a big newspaper plant on the same street maybe they printed them....

Please post the proof that your valuable hobby reseach has concluded that Other candy products sold R310's. Anonymous issues tend to lack advertising from a named source which R310's have. If another candy maker sourced R310 pictures it seems likely they would get their own box topper just like butterfinger did to help market the promotion. The way to go from I have 17 weak unsubstantiated theories to relevent hobby research is to post some proof.

Should we all just take your word that you have researched this very better than all them other guys and revert back to how it was in the late 1970's because Trey so smart and Trey got questions. Starting and finishing with "Why would that be" powerful stuff my brother.

but still no proof. Still no proof. The truth counts. So proof is important. So if you have it please post it.