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

[oldeboo]

Any thoughts...oh boy. Curious if there are any known examples of these out there? I'm not familiar with this item as a preface. At first glance it seems suspicious, until you dig deeper. This might be something really interesting. The cardstock seems legit. The staining is believable. The printing seems like good quality. The tabs on the bottom indicate that this would have been designed as a point of sale box/tin topper. That's only the beginning though.

I have a rather strong theory that the "Large 8x10 Picture" being referenced to is what the hobby generally refers to as R310 1934 Butterfinger Premiums(up until now?). The item in question would be the equivalent to the Gehrig ad seen below for the Butterfinger product.

The address on the advertisement traces back to the Curtiss Candy Company. The Curtiss Candy Company happened to be the producer of Butterfingers and several lines of gum, along with many other candy products. The physical address connection between the Curtiss Candy Company and General Gum, Inc. at 337 E. Illinois Street is found here: https://www.madeinchicagomuseum.com/...tiss-candy-co/

"By 1928, Baby Ruth was the top selling candy bar in the country, and many other candies and gums in the Curtiss arsenal carried the same Baby Ruth brand name for optimal exposure.

In total, the Curtiss Candy Co. now employed more than 3,000 Chicagoans along with various national salesmen and distributors. Brand new offices were purchased in Lakeview at Broadway and Diversey, and the production efforts expanded to three major factories. With the Briar Place plant pushed to its max, two additional facilities were up and running in Streeterville, at 311 and 337 E. Illinois Street, just north of the Chicago River and the Ogden Slip, and east of the Tribune Tower. In short order, large Baby Ruth and Butterfinger signs were attached to these buildings, remaining familiar sights downtown up into the 1960s."


With quick research I can't find a direct link between the Curtiss Candy Company and General Gum, Inc., but there is evidence that the Curtiss Candy Company essentially operated other companies as seen with Kidd Products Corporation in the FTC complaint that is attached below. The same addresses and 8x10 pictures in 1934 sure seems like more than just a coincidence, but there's more.

If you've read this far, this is where things get a little interesting...
The item in question references a Babe Ruth premium through the mail. An upgraded Butterfinger Ruth premium, beyond the normal Ruth photo, doesn't exist to my knowledge. Correct? Check out some of the clues on the General Gum, Inc. ad. First you have two holes that look like staple marks. Next, you have dark staining on the reverse right hand side that looks like it could be staining from a sheet of paper. Notice that the stain tilts down slightly from left to right, then go look at the front. Something, like a sheet of paper was wrapped around that end and stapled to cover over the mail in premium portion. You can see the same downward slant continuing and notice the vertical stains in the vicinity of the staple holes. The vertical stains are from the end of the paper that was wrapped around the edge. But why? Well there simply was never an R310 Butterfinger/General Gum mail in premium produced, so they covered it up.

I think the evidence is rather overwhelming that this is a legit box/tin topper advertising R310 Butterfinger/General Gum Premiums. It's pretty challenging for me to believe otherwise.

Hopefully this wasn't all common knowledge

Perhaps a true Ebay gem!?

[Leon]

That's interesting. Nice research...coincidentally I very recently picked up this R310 from Steve (thanks Steve)..These are so fragile....shown a few times but still...

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Leon

That's interesting. Nice research...coincidentally I very recently picked up this R310 from Steve (thanks Steve)..These are so fragile....shown a few times but still...

Leon

Amazing you have some many things that are unique and historical and can always pull it up fast to add to related items/links

[Hankphenom]

I'm sticking with "created and artificially aged fantasy piece intended to defraud." Just looks too much like so many of the other bogus items like this we've seen over the years. I don't care what lengths they went to to make it look old, it just doesn't look old like real stuff looks old, very few of these pieces do for the simple reason that it's hard to replicate accurately what it takes a lot of time to do to things. If you've seen a lot of old paper, you know this is not what real aging and natural deterioration from various causes looks like. Is there a chance I'm wrong? Always, but I've give that about 10% in this case. Also, from major companies like these, no way this should be the only one known.

[Shoeless Moe]

Hank, check out the backs of these items:

https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=81565

https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=68679

https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=68683

https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=66478

They look fairly similar to the Ruth piece. And in some of the descriptions REA states "it's the first we've even seen of this piece" or "this is the only one we've seen".

Not saying the Ruth piece is real, but it is possible. I'm still researching as well.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Hank, check out the backs of these items:
They look fairly similar to the Ruth piece. And in some of the descriptions REA states "it's the first we've even seen of this piece" or "this is the only one we've seen". Not saying the Ruth piece is real, but it is possible. I'm still researching as well.

Definite similarities to the back, if not the front. I'm upping my odds of good to 20%. And Paul, let me add that I do hope it is, for your sake and to place another great piece in the pantheon of memorabilia.

[Shoeless Moe]

Haha! Thanks......I'll take 20%.......I'm only at 50% myself....and about 45% of that is due to Trey's input.

It's in the mail on it's way to me. Luckily, or unluckily, I have purchased some fakes over the years, so I can usually spot them in hand, but also found some gems, so I'm hoping its easy to tell one way or the other, right away.

If it's borderline then I'm in trouble and may need to find someone here on the board in Illinois or Wisconsin I can run it past.