Babe Ruth General Gum Sign/Display

[oldeboo]

There is no proof that R310 was distributed exclusively by any specific product, it's not that hard to understand. That Butterfinger overprint is no different than the General Gum store display.

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by oldeboo

There is no proof that R310 was tied to any specific product, it's not that hard to understand. That Butterfinger overprint is no different than the General Gum store display.

Well the obvious difference is an image of an R310 is shown as free with the purchase of Butterfinger. The General gum sign has NO picture of the cards that were offered. Get it...picture of R310 with words that say free with purchase of a Butterfinger. I think that is proof they were tied together.

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

Well the obvious difference is an image of an R310 is shown as free with the purchase of Butterfinger. The General gum sign has NO picture of the cards that were offered. Get it...picture of R310 with words that say free with purchase of a Butterfinger. I think that is proof they were tied together.

Yes certainly they were somehow, no doubt about it. I'm not arguing that. Now we are on the same page. If it's too much of a leap to think that a Curtiss Candy company that produced gum and made an original store display that mentions 8x10 pictures during the same exact period as R310 is a great leap, so be it. It's also interesting that a lot of the surviving Butterfinger overprints seem to be in really nice condition with not many signs of being used in stores other than a little bit of corner wear. I haven't seen anything in print that screams from the roof that R310 was only distributed by one brand. In fact, I haven't seen anything from period sources on any front. I've seen some R310s that were put on thicker stock with a stamp on it and I've seen an original General Gum store display that mentions 8x10 pictures of baseball stars in 1934. An R310 image with a Butterfinger overprint doesn't prove by itself that Butterfinger distributed these exclusively or even at all, just like the General Gum display doesn't prove they were distributed in that form either. I don't think it's a one or the other situation.

What other 8x10 baseball pictures do you think Curtiss distributed with this General Gum display? Or do you think they never made the 8x10 pictures and intended to make a completely different set than R310 during the same time?

Can't we just sit back and say that there is a chance that General Gum, Butterfinger and possibly Baby Ruth distributed R310?

I don't think there will ever be anything that proves that any of the above didn't distribute R310s. Something could certainly pop up that proves that at least one them did. Again, my reference is to the actual R310 issue that was actually given away. There may be a valid reason why Curtiss chose to leave them anonymous. If it was an exclusive product why wouldn't they have put branding on them? That doesn't add up from a marketing perspective.

[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.

[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.