NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on Ebay
Pre-WWII Cards
Post WWII Cards
Vintage Memorabilia
Babe Ruth Cards
Ty Cobb Cards
Lou Gehrig Cards
Mickey Mantle Cards
Goudey Cards
Bowman Cards
T205s on Ebay
Tobacco "T" Cards
Caramel "E" Cards
Vintage Baseball Postcards
Football Cards on Ebay
Exhibit Cards
Strip Cards
Baking Cards
Sporting News
Playball Cards on Ebay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-16-2021, 07:07 PM
Shoeless Moe Shoeless Moe is offline
Paul Gruszka aka P Diddy G, Cambo, Fluke, Jagr, PG13, Bon Jokey, Paulie Walnuts, Most Blocked Poster
Pa.ul Grus.zka
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Over by there
Posts: 3,735
Default Babe Ruth General Gum Sign/Display

All, you may have seen this thread on the card side, now putting it up here in case you have not, and would appreciate any input.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=301689

At first glance it's "fake", and I too thought that before doing a double take and looking closer.

Some very knowledgeable Net54 collectors (Michael Trotnic, David Cycleback, etc.) have commented in that they feel it is authentic, and some have called it a Fake.

It would be best if you read that thread from beginning to end as there are some very interesting comments and useful tips for determining if certain memorabilia is authentic or not.

Please provide any comments you have, good, bad or ugly.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_1271.jpg (76.4 KB, 643 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_1272.jpg (76.3 KB, 635 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_1273.jpg (76.1 KB, 651 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_1274.jpg (76.8 KB, 646 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_1275.jpg (69.0 KB, 639 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_1276.jpg (77.8 KB, 643 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_1277.jpg (68.2 KB, 637 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_1278.jpg (76.5 KB, 628 views)

Last edited by Shoeless Moe; 05-17-2021 at 09:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-24-2021, 11:14 PM
drcy's Avatar
drcy drcy is offline
David Ru.dd Cycl.eback
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,125
Default

It is authentic and original.

Last edited by drcy; 05-24-2021 at 11:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-02-2021, 01:10 PM
irishdenny's Avatar
irishdenny irishdenny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,393
Default

Honestly... imho saying anything after what David "Cemented" would be difficult to do! Ive always Admired His Work & Knowledge!!!

* I do Hope that I'm not over stepping any boundaries here!?

A few years back I sent an item to David for His Approval...
I'm Not sure if David is still working in this area,
However that would be my 1st move (:

Please forgive me if I spoke out prematurely...
__________________
Life's Grand,
Denny Walsh
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-03-2021, 11:02 PM
drcy's Avatar
drcy drcy is offline
David Ru.dd Cycl.eback
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,125
Default

My very first impression from the funky staining and angled photos was it might be fake. Thus, I don't fault others who had that first impression.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-04-2021, 10:23 AM
jerseygary's Avatar
jerseygary jerseygary is offline
G@ry Cier@dkowski
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Northern Kentucky
Posts: 788
Default

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...
__________________
MY BASEBALL CARD PROJECT:
www.studiogaryc.com/baseball-blog/
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-04-2021, 03:49 PM
Butch7999's Avatar
Butch7999 Butch7999 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Western New York
Posts: 905
Default

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?
__________________
-- the three idiots at
Baseball Games
https://baseballgames.dreamhosters.com/
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/baseballgames/

Successful transactions with: bocabirdman, GrayGhost, jimivintage,
Oneofthree67, orioles93, quinnsryche, thecatspajamas, ValKehl
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-06-2021, 09:17 PM
ooo-ribay's Avatar
ooo-ribay ooo-ribay is offline
Rob
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Salt Lake
Posts: 3,537
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch7999 View Post
Gary raises an excellent point --
He sure does...
__________________
if you can help with SF Giants items (no cards), let me send you my wantlist!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-07-2021, 07:20 AM
Hankphenom Hankphenom is offline
Hank Thomas
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,455
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-08-2021, 02:47 PM
Hankphenom Hankphenom is offline
Hank Thomas
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,455
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hankphenom View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-08-2021, 05:25 PM
jerseygary's Avatar
jerseygary jerseygary is offline
G@ry Cier@dkowski
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Northern Kentucky
Posts: 788
Default

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.
__________________
MY BASEBALL CARD PROJECT:
www.studiogaryc.com/baseball-blog/
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-09-2021, 11:51 AM
nolemmings's Avatar
nolemmings nolemmings is offline
Todd Schultz
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3,032
Default

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.
__________________
Little darling, the smile's returning to their faces
Little darling, it seems like years since it's been here
Here comes the sun, do, dun, do, do
Here comes the sun, and I say
It's all right

Last edited by nolemmings; 06-09-2021 at 12:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-09-2021, 01:18 PM
Hankphenom Hankphenom is offline
Hank Thomas
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,455
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-09-2021, 02:16 PM
nolemmings's Avatar
nolemmings nolemmings is offline
Todd Schultz
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3,032
Default

I guess Iím getting tripped up on hobby lexicon, and what is meant by the term fantasy piece. I truly hope that the OPís item is authentic, and I believe it so, although this is memorabilia and an area that I neither collect nor profess to know very well. If not authentic, though, I believe it more likely to be a reproduction or based upon something authentic than something contrived from thin air. What is the main view of those who oppose it being the real deal?
__________________
Little darling, the smile's returning to their faces
Little darling, it seems like years since it's been here
Here comes the sun, do, dun, do, do
Here comes the sun, and I say
It's all right
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-09-2021, 07:00 PM
Hankphenom Hankphenom is offline
Hank Thomas
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,455
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nolemmings View Post
I guess Iím getting tripped up on hobby lexicon, and what is meant by the term fantasy piece. I truly hope that the OPís item is authentic, and I believe it so, although this is memorabilia and an area that I neither collect nor profess to know very well. If not authentic, though, I believe it more likely to be a reproduction or based upon something authentic than something contrived from thin air. What is the main view of those who oppose it being the real deal?
Among the many mysteries surrounding this piece has to do with your very question: if it is some kind of repro, even a composite, where are the vintage items the fabricator based it on? As noted, there are known vintage elements in the details of the piece, but how could it be that the fabricator is the only one to have come across an original containing the graphics used in the replication? And if it was made up out of whole cloth--a true fantasy piece--a lot of design talent went into its creation, and how could the time, effort, and risk of exposure possibly be worth what one of these would bring on eBay? Although waiting for answers to my questions regarding the forensic analyses, I'm still leaning toward the latter of the unlikely scenarios outlined above, thinking that perhaps the creator envisioned a lot more than it actually sold for, maybe by a factor of ten or twenty, and that a result along those lines would have made the effort eminently worthwhile.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-09-2021, 09:38 PM
drcy's Avatar
drcy drcy is offline
David Ru.dd Cycl.eback
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,125
Default

As the debate continues, I ordered one of the fineartamerica prints to examine in person.

It should be a few days or so before I get it, but I will report back.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-10-2021, 09:16 AM
drcy's Avatar
drcy drcy is offline
David Ru.dd Cycl.eback
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,125
Default

One thing to know is that we don't know what the finesportsamerica final items look like, and what we are seeing on their website isn't the final product.

Meaning, much of their images on the site are of real items (original old movie posters, etc), and they print on demand from those images. Thus, many of those items, including perhaps the Ruth ad, may never have been ordered or produced.

An example is, the following link pictures an actual original vintage movie poster, and, when ordered, they print on demand that image onto products: coffee cup, bag, print. The actual 'Pride of the Yankees' coffee cup, phone case or print likely doesn't exist. Is the Pride of the Yankees coffee cup you order original? Obviously not, and, beyond that it's on a coffee cup, will be easily identified as a reprint. Is the poster pictured on their site original? Yes.

Thus, the actual, finished products you order are not shown on the site. They have speculative images of what the Lou Gehrig poster or Gum ad imposed on a generic handbag or print or phone case would resemble, but that's it.

Lou Gehrig movie poster

And, as has already been demonstrated, the eBay ad did not come from this site or from the image they have, as they are graphically different.

But, as I said, I will get one and report.

I'd also be happy to then examine the eBay bought one.

Last edited by drcy; 06-10-2021 at 11:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-10-2021, 09:48 AM
Hankphenom Hankphenom is offline
Hank Thomas
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,455
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drcy View Post
I'd also be happy to then examine the eBay bought one.
I'd love to see that happen, and would consider your verdict upon examination as good as we will ever get. One more question I'm not sure has been addressed: was there an attempt to track down the source of the eBay example? Was the seller contacted for the start of that process, and what was the result?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-10-2021, 09:55 AM
Hankphenom Hankphenom is offline
Hank Thomas
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,455
Default

Would someone please provide a link to the FineartAmerica print?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-10-2021, 10:57 AM
oldeboo oldeboo is offline
Trey
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 299
Default

It was said in the other thread that this item came from a collection that included some old baseball related letters. Shown below are a couple of samples that the seller had listed that were probably from that collection.

Here is the link to the available prints:

https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...tion-road.html
Attached Images
File Type: jpg ppr.jpg (72.8 KB, 193 views)
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-10-2021, 12:18 PM
Shoeless Moe Shoeless Moe is offline
Paul Gruszka aka P Diddy G, Cambo, Fluke, Jagr, PG13, Bon Jokey, Paulie Walnuts, Most Blocked Poster
Pa.ul Grus.zka
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Over by there
Posts: 3,735
Default

yes like Trey said.

I contacted the Ebay seller, he stated the sign and the old Yankee letters/contracts came from the same Estate Sale. He stated he had recently purchased all of that from.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-10-2021, 12:34 PM
Butch7999's Avatar
Butch7999 Butch7999 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Western New York
Posts: 905
Default

For anyone newly joining this thread's conversation, we'd recommend perusing the original thread in the main forum.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=301689
Most if not all of the questions being asked here were previously addressed in that original thread, including a comparison
of Paul's display piece with the off-register images shown at the FineArtAmerica website, and David's excellent analysis of
the cardboard and paper and printing quality.
__________________
-- the three idiots at
Baseball Games
https://baseballgames.dreamhosters.com/
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/baseballgames/

Successful transactions with: bocabirdman, GrayGhost, jimivintage,
Oneofthree67, orioles93, quinnsryche, thecatspajamas, ValKehl
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-11-2021, 03:40 PM
bigfanNY bigfanNY is offline
Jonathan Sterling
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,445
Default

[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 CandyĖthe 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 itís 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 ďfantasyĒ piece in the same vein as phantom World Series ticketsĖ 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
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-12-2021, 10:34 AM
oldeboo oldeboo is offline
Trey
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfanNY View Post
But I have not seen any evidence they were owned by Curtiss.
What would you think if General Gum was a direct and known subsidiary of Curtiss Candy?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-12-2021, 11:22 AM
drcy's Avatar
drcy drcy is offline
David Ru.dd Cycl.eback
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,125
Default

Trey sent me microscopic images of the printing-- much clearer and more magnified than shown in this thread--, and it is definitely period and vintage.

Last edited by drcy; 06-12-2021 at 11:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-12-2021, 11:52 AM
oldeboo oldeboo is offline
Trey
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drcy View Post
Trey sent me microscopic images of the printing-- much clearer and more magnified than shown in this thread--, and it is definitely period and vintage.
To expand on that only a little bit, but yes, I currently have the item in hand. Any remaining doubt has unequivocally vanished upon a more thorough examination.

Last edited by oldeboo; 06-12-2021 at 12:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-12-2021, 02:52 PM
bigfanNY bigfanNY is offline
Jonathan Sterling
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,445
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeboo View Post
What would you think if General Gum was a direct and known subsidiary of Curtiss Candy?
If General gum were a subsidiary of Curtiss then all you would need is proof that they had a license to issue R310's to state with any certinly that they did. Something like the cardboard R310 Butterfinger box toppers.
But why would Curtiss compete against itself. Especially a key product like the Butterfinger bar? The sign says 2 sticks of gum for a penny plus a card. Sound like something a company trying to dig itself out of bankruptcy would do?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-12-2021, 03:13 PM
oldeboo oldeboo is offline
Trey
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 299
Default

So R310 being an anonymous issue completely eliminates Baby Ruth as stated in early literature, correct?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfanNY View Post
If General gum were a subsidiary of Curtiss then all you would need is proof that they had a license to issue R310's to state with any certinly that they did. Something like the cardboard R310 Butterfinger box toppers.
But why would Curtiss compete against itself. Especially a key product like the Butterfinger bar? The sign says 2 sticks of gum for a penny plus a card. Sound like something a company trying to dig itself out of bankruptcy would do?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-12-2021, 04:23 PM
nolemmings's Avatar
nolemmings nolemmings is offline
Todd Schultz
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3,032
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfanNY View Post
If General gum were a subsidiary of Curtiss then all you would need is proof that they had a license to issue R310's to state with any certinly that they did. Something like the cardboard R310 Butterfinger box toppers.
But why would Curtiss compete against itself. Especially a key product like the Butterfinger bar? The sign says 2 sticks of gum for a penny plus a card. Sound like something a company trying to dig itself out of bankruptcy would do?
As usual, most of what you say is inaccurate and borderline non-sensical.
Curtiss Candy had financial problems throughout 1929, for reasons that were hardly uncommon. Crashes in the commodities and stock markets kicked off the Great Depression–maybe you’ve heard of it.
However, as recounted by those that were there, the decision to forego bankruptcy was made in late 1929, and then: “Once Otto Schnering was given the stamp of approval by his creditors in 1929, he proved he was up to the task of paying off the company’s debts without slowing down its exponential growth. The Butterfinger bar, Curtiss’s second major candy bar smash, kept the factories firing on all cylinders even during the roughest years of the Depression.” See that? Exponential growth, not a company digging itself out of bankruptcy. If you care to read more:
https://www.madeinchicagomuseum.com/...tiss-candy-co/

And who knows what you’re trying to say by commenting on the pricing. Let’s see, who in the early 1930's would be so foolish to package a baseball picture and gum for a penny? The better question is what company did not use that pricing? Heck, it carried into Bowman and Topps decades later, so it was hardly a rash business model. In fact, it seems more likely that kids would splurge a nickel to get multiple sticks of gum they could chew all day and 5 baseball pictures than to pay the same price for a single candy bar gone in fifteen minutes and only one baseball picture.
__________________
Little darling, the smile's returning to their faces
Little darling, it seems like years since it's been here
Here comes the sun, do, dun, do, do
Here comes the sun, and I say
It's all right

Last edited by nolemmings; 06-12-2021 at 04:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-12-2021, 04:45 PM
oldeboo oldeboo is offline
Trey
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nolemmings View Post
And who knows what youíre trying to say by commenting on the pricing. Letís see, who in the early 1930's would be so foolish to package a baseball picture and gum for a penny? The better question is what company did not use that pricing? Heck, it carried into Bowman and Topps decades later, so it was hardly a rash business model. In fact, it seems more likely that kids would splurge a nickel to get multiple sticks of gum they could chew all day and 5 baseball pictures than to pay the same price for a single candy bar gone in fifteen minutes and only one baseball picture.
It's just hilarious commentary without question and pretty fun to read. Every point has been completely debunked, then the next guess goes to something more ridiculous. There is proof that General Gum was a subsidiary of Curtiss Candy. Anyone want to guess the amount of gum you could get through Baby Ruth Gum for 1 cent in 1934? There is actual research that has gone into this, and that's completely ignoring the fact that the General Gum store display is the real deal, that can't be legitimately debated. If in some world you're still questioning the General Gum display you are without a doubt questioning the Butterfinger display as well. The Butterfingers have many significant questions around them, no doubt about it.

It's like looking for a penny at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, ain't happenin'.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-12-2021, 06:31 PM
oldeboo oldeboo is offline
Trey
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 299
Default

Testing out my my Saturday evening comedy skit...

There is no way T206 cards are real because there was no way to get licensing agreements for all of those images for so many different brands. Not possible, T206 are obviously fake. No company would want to have their brands compete for sales. Makes no sense. Even if you showed me a physical copy of a licensing agreement I still would think T206 cards are fake. I would just make something else up.

It makes no sense for a fast food company to sell a kid's meal with an option for a hamburger or chicken nuggets. Why would any business offer competing products? Imagine if on top of offering a variety of products they decided to offer the same toy with either a hamburger or chicken nuggets. That would be so foolish! Not possible!

I'm trying here, folks.

Last edited by oldeboo; 06-12-2021 at 06:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-12-2021, 09:17 PM
bigfanNY bigfanNY is offline
Jonathan Sterling
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,445
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeboo View Post
So R310 being an anonymous issue completely eliminates Baby Ruth as stated in early literature, correct?
R310 is not an anonymous issue. They were issued with Butterfinger candy bars. And there is proof of this. Just like there is proof that many cigarette manufacturers issued T206's based on the advertisements on the back. If you have some proof that R310's were issued with ANY other candy gum or clothing store etc. Please end the suspense and post it.
Because it seems to me that what you call research is just guesswork and conjecture. You started with the premise that R310's were issued with multiple products and proceeded to gather facts to convince yourself you were right. That is very..very different than researching who issued R310's. Because as I stated above the only product I have ever seen conclusively tied to R310's is Butterfinger Candy bars.
So if " your really trying here" try posting some proof. If it is so obvious that it was done proof should be easy to find.
Really the best one was that the Chicago tribune was on the same street so maybe they printed the R310's Rock solid research Trey all of the Baseball card collecting world should pay homage to your grand efforts. The culmination of course is the proof you will be supplying in your next post... no need to respond to my debunked theories just post the proof and shut me and my ignorant, stupid to lazy to do any real reasearch mouth up. Looking forward to it Trey.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 1934-butterfinger-overprint-r310.jpg (52.1 KB, 103 views)
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-12-2021, 09:27 PM
oldeboo oldeboo is offline
Trey
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 299
Default

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.

Last edited by oldeboo; 06-12-2021 at 09:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-12-2021, 09:28 PM
drcy's Avatar
drcy drcy is offline
David Ru.dd Cycl.eback
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,125
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeboo View Post
It makes no sense for a fast food company to sell a kid's meal with an option for a hamburger or chicken nuggets. Why would any business offer competing products? Imagine if on top of offering a variety of products they decided to offer the same toy with either a hamburger or chicken nuggets. That would be so foolish! Not possible!
Link: Coca Cola brands

Mars Candy's brands
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-12-2021, 09:36 PM
oldeboo oldeboo is offline
Trey
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drcy View Post
No doubt about it. Much like Curtiss Candy had many subsidiaries and product offerings, one of which was General Gum, Inc.

Last edited by oldeboo; 06-12-2021 at 09:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-12-2021, 09:39 PM
bigfanNY bigfanNY is offline
Jonathan Sterling
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,445
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeboo View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-12-2021, 09:54 PM
bigfanNY bigfanNY is offline
Jonathan Sterling
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,445
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drcy View Post
Lol yes many large companies have many products. Not my point.

Curtiss Candy had the #1 candy bar in America the Baby Ruth. They spent Marketing dollars to encourage people to buy the newer Butterfinger. Not maybe, not well they might have, not why might that be. Real hard proof with a company name and card set clearly identified. The Ad dose not say free with any Curtiss Candy or General gum product. It says Free with Butterfinger so we know exactly the product Curtiss candy wanted consumers to purchase. And they advertised the marketing campaign. Where is the marketing and or ads from any other company that also issued R310's.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-12-2021, 09:58 PM
oldeboo oldeboo is offline
Trey
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfanNY View Post
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.

Last edited by oldeboo; 06-12-2021 at 10:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-12-2021, 11:00 PM
bigfanNY bigfanNY is offline
Jonathan Sterling
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,445
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-12-2021, 11:05 PM
oldeboo oldeboo is offline
Trey
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 299
Default

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.

Last edited by oldeboo; 06-13-2021 at 12:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-13-2021, 12:11 AM
nolemmings's Avatar
nolemmings nolemmings is offline
Todd Schultz
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3,032
Default

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?
__________________
Little darling, the smile's returning to their faces
Little darling, it seems like years since it's been here
Here comes the sun, do, dun, do, do
Here comes the sun, and I say
It's all right

Last edited by nolemmings; 06-13-2021 at 01:28 AM. Reason: kinder, gentler
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 06-13-2021, 02:16 AM
drcy's Avatar
drcy drcy is offline
David Ru.dd Cycl.eback
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,125
Default

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.

Last edited by drcy; 06-13-2021 at 02:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-13-2021, 03:01 AM
bigfanNY bigfanNY is offline
Jonathan Sterling
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,445
Default

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.

Last edited by bigfanNY; 06-13-2021 at 09:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-13-2021, 09:12 AM
oldeboo oldeboo is offline
Trey
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drcy View Post
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.

Last edited by oldeboo; 06-13-2021 at 09:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-13-2021, 10:44 AM
nolemmings's Avatar
nolemmings nolemmings is offline
Todd Schultz
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3,032
Default

"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.
__________________
Little darling, the smile's returning to their faces
Little darling, it seems like years since it's been here
Here comes the sun, do, dun, do, do
Here comes the sun, and I say
It's all right

Last edited by nolemmings; 06-13-2021 at 11:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-13-2021, 11:07 AM
oldeboo oldeboo is offline
Trey
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nolemmings View Post
"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.

Last edited by oldeboo; 06-13-2021 at 11:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-13-2021, 11:14 AM
nolemmings's Avatar
nolemmings nolemmings is offline
Todd Schultz
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3,032
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeboo View Post
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.
__________________
Little darling, the smile's returning to their faces
Little darling, it seems like years since it's been here
Here comes the sun, do, dun, do, do
Here comes the sun, and I say
It's all right
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-13-2021, 11:50 AM
bigfanNY bigfanNY is offline
Jonathan Sterling
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,445
Default

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.

Last edited by bigfanNY; 06-13-2021 at 11:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-13-2021, 11:52 AM
drcy's Avatar
drcy drcy is offline
David Ru.dd Cycl.eback
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,125
Default

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.

Last edited by drcy; 06-13-2021 at 12:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-13-2021, 11:58 AM
nolemmings's Avatar
nolemmings nolemmings is offline
Todd Schultz
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3,032
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfanNY View Post
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.
Again you are wrong. I own the piece in the scan, and can assure you that there are two sticks. The point is obvious-- no one seriously would maintain that one piece of gum cracked so perfectly right down the middle. If you spent any time collecting or researching these, you would know that. Look at any decent auction site archives and you will see that the coupon and/or back of player card are often stained with an outline showing two pieces. Here's one on ebay now:


Edited to add: From the OC website: "The cards were distributed in a glassine (semi-transparent wax paper) wrapper along with two sticks of gum and a coupon." See https://oldcardboard.com//eNews/2014...eNews124.htm#2
__________________
Little darling, the smile's returning to their faces
Little darling, it seems like years since it's been here
Here comes the sun, do, dun, do, do
Here comes the sun, and I say
It's all right

Last edited by nolemmings; 06-13-2021 at 05:22 PM. Reason: Adding OC link
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-13-2021, 12:08 PM
oldeboo oldeboo is offline
Trey
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nolemmings View Post
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?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg BBMS.jpg (53.6 KB, 92 views)
File Type: jpg BGCU.jpg (71.2 KB, 87 views)

Last edited by oldeboo; 06-13-2021 at 11:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Babe Ruth General Gum Sign/Display - Black Light PIX added FINALLY Shoeless Moe Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 169 06-04-2021 07:19 PM
Babe ruth Quaker Oats sign opinions MGHPro Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used 4 08-16-2019 07:38 PM
12 inch Babe Ruth die cut counter sign combatsports4life Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 9 05-24-2011 06:46 AM
4 ft Babe Ruth Fro Joy Stand-up Sign $49,999.99 CarltonHendricks Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used 5 06-25-2009 03:51 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:06 AM.


ebay GSB