Babe Ruth General Gum Sign/Display

[Butch7999]

Gary raises an excellent point -- yet, might it also explain the rarity, or really uniqueness, of this example?
Is it conceivable this was a test piece, a prototype, which in its day was quickly discovered to be an impractical,
poorly-conceived design, and was tossed back into the company's or the printer's archives without ever
being distributed to shopkeepers, or ever redesigned in a more functional form?
Separately, is it also conceivable it was meant to be suspended from something other than the back end
of a box -- some thin metal rod or something that would've held it just a few inches more visibly aloft?

[ooo-ribay]

Originally Posted by Butch7999

Gary raises an excellent point --

He sure does...

[Hankphenom]

As I posited on this thread on the other side: if you wanted the underside of the box top to provide the display, wouldn't you just print it that way so that when the top was lifted, there's your display? There are many examples of this in the hobby, are there any of some kind of tab configuration as in this case? And have we arrived at a consensus from our printing experts that the manufacturing details of this piece conform to vintage norms, or are we still working on that?

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

As I posited on this thread on the other side: if you wanted the underside of the box top to provide the display, wouldn't you just print it that way so that when the top was lifted, there's your display? There are many examples of this in the hobby, are there any of some kind of tab configuration as in this case? And have we arrived at a consensus from our printing experts that the manufacturing details of this piece conform to vintage norms, or are we still working on that?

Anyone? Bueller?

[jerseygary]

One other thing that looks hinky on this piece is it appears that one of the tabs show creasing on the backside but not on the front. Can't say for sure without having it in my hand, but that's what the pictures appear to show to my eye.

[nolemmings]

Although I guess this could be a fantasy piece in the sense that this specific display was never used in 1934, I find it less and less believable that the product itself did not exist (Baseball Gum), and that the baseball pictures currently catalogued as R310s were not sold with that product. There is an undeniable tie between General Gum and Curtiss Candy–the addresses used for the plant and general offices/HQ both match up. It seems far-fetched to me that someone completely made up a display piece thinking it would be clever to make this connection in hopes that it would be discovered by savvy collectors down the road and falsely used to support claims of authenticity. I suppose it’s possible that Curtiss Candy initially thought to distribute the R310 pictures through its gum affiliate and that it generated prototype advertising that never hit the stores, opting instead to tie the pictures to its Butterfinger candy bars and only those candy bars. If so, I guess that could be construed as a “fantasy” piece in the same vein as phantom World Series tickets– actually from the period and real but never put into commerce.

Gary, while I appreciate your mock-ups and understand your point, these are not particularly persuasive to me. Your re-creation of how the display would appear, assuming it to be accurate, still shows the emphasized portion of the ad. All that seems “cut off” from my view is the second reference to the price of the gum at 1 cent, and the price is already shown prominently front and center, so there is no confusion there. The Ruth premium ad is fully visible. Some small amount of graphics is wasted I suppose, but you are assuming that the piece was only intended to be used as you constructed it. It easily could have been hung or displayed in other ways–there even appear to be staple holes in this example.

It is now known that “Baseball Gum” had some relationship to the distribution of these same pictures in Canada, through O-Pee-Chee. That was not learned until 1997--more than a half century after the fact. It was established by the discovery of one, flimsy, rather non-descript envelope wrapper, which made an offer very similar to the one present in this piece– gum and a picture for a penny. I say that to show that it doesn’t always take much to alter the hobby’s understanding of set origins, and people don’t necessarily bat an eye when information surfaces decades later. So the find of a possible display piece for R310 only this century is not that suspicious, to me anyway.

It is also known that there was a commonality or relationship between General Gum and OPC at the time, as they both issued the magic tricks non-sport set in the early 1930s. In addition, it is known that General Gum issued movie star cards with a mail-in offer for larger photos in 1933. The only thing I see missing is a direct correlation between Baseball Gum and the General Gum Inc., and that link is supplied by this display piece. Unless of course you believe that someone made it out of whole cloth (cardboard) with intent to deceive, and it’s just coincidence that all of these other facts align.

[Hankphenom]

What about the forensics? Have we concluded that this is period paper with period printing techniques? That's not dispositive, of course, but would take it a long way toward genuine in my mind.

[bigfanNY]

[QUOTE=nolemmings;2111926]Although I guess this could be a fantasy piece in the sense that this specific display was never used in 1934, I find it less and less believable that the product itself did not exist (Baseball Gum), and that the baseball pictures currently catalogued as R310s were not sold with that product. There is an undeniable tie between General Gum and Curtiss Candy–the addresses used for the plant and general offices/HQ both match up. It seems far-fetched to me that someone completely made up a display piece thinking it would be clever to make this connection in hopes that it would be discovered by savvy collectors down the road and falsely used to support claims of authenticity. I suppose it’s possible that Curtiss Candy initially thought to distribute the R310 pictures through its gum affiliate and that it generated prototype advertising that never hit the stores, opting instead to tie the pictures to its Butterfinger candy bars and only those candy bars. If so, I guess that could be construed as a “fantasy” piece in the same vein as phantom World Series tickets– actually from the period and real but never put


Some additional research shows that in 1931 Curtis candy faced Bankruptcy. They were allowed to continue but were forced to rein in their finances. Looking over Chicago phonebooks I only find General gum using same address as Curtiss after 1931. I can find no indication that General gum was ever a subsidiary of Curtiss candy. I am of course open to one being found but the Curtiss candy Museum has no reference.
Second if Curtiss wanted to issue R310's with Gum they would have used Baby Ruth Gum which they issued as far back as 1926. The ACC and some early giides such as Sterling list R310's as being issued by Curtiss candy and Baby Ruth Gum. But the Butterfinger cardboard displays are the only item that I know of discovered in the past 87 years directly tying a licence to R310's.
Just because you live on Pennsylvania ave in DC dose not make you president. It just makes you a neighbor General Gum clearly produced products in Chicago at Curtis factory. But I have not seen any evidence they were owned by Curtiss. So the fact that there is no set of cards tied to this sign along with the 2 sticks of gum make me doubt this sign... time will tell