Not just not incompatible, but THE starting point for any reasonable discussion of authenticity. If it doesn't pass a forensics analysis, why go any further? I'm not sure why you would let charlatans like CC remove a perfectly good word from the lexicon. From Webster's: "3. forensics plural in form but singular or plural in construction: the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems especially : scientific analysis of physical evidence."

It's not just Coach's Corner... All of the bogus/fraudulent authenticators of the 90s - 2000s used the term "Forensic". It was either in their title or was used to describe their shady/fake investigative practices.

J. Dimaggio, Frank Garo, Donald Frangipani, and a bunch of others tried to impress, and cojole the public into thinking they were legitimate and/or knew what they were doing. It got to the point where any company using the term "forensic" could immediately be dismissed as worthless (at a minimum) or bought-off (at a maximum).

Anyone who collected during this time knew it, and the "F" word has subsequently been tainted ever since the FBI's Operation Bullpen put all of those clowns out of business. It was so rampant that (to this day) you never see legitimate authenticators using "Forensic" in their titles. And of course today, all of those forensic documents and LOAs are deemed completely and laughably worthless.

I lived through that time, intimately involved in the hobby throughout, but never got the memo that the word "forensic" had been rendered inoperative. I set up at shows with Keating for 12 years, and don't remember us ever having that particular discussion. Kevin was adamant, though, that so-called letters of authenticity should actually be called letters of opinion, so maybe the term "authenticity" should be the one declared inoperative instead. "Legitimate authenticators" can use whatever terminology they want, but don't mind me if I continue to use the word I think describes a situation with the most precision. I will, however, take your caution into advisement should I ever become one myself, something about as likely as ever resolving with overwhelmingly certainty whether the General Gum piece is "good" or not.

Yes, I'm familiar with those forgers.

Really, forensic specifically relates to court cases and criminal and civil law. Thus, my posts on Net54 aren't forensics.

Good God, how did we go down this boring rabbit hole? Quoting Webster again: "scientific analysis of physical evidence." That's what I was talking about, but just to put an end to this ridiculous part of the discussion, from now on I'll use words from your posts to make sure I don't get another lecture on how best to articulate my thoughts.

There's nothing wrong with talking about forensics in it's proper and applicable form.

Those douchebag authenticators just ruined that particular word for me and many others in the collectibles realm, by misusing and over-using it. Granted, it pertained mostly to fake autograph authentication, and not so much with pieces like the one in question here.

I'll try to remember to be more careful in my future usage, Mark. As I said, if any word should be banned for widespread misappropriation, my candidate would be "authenticator."

Good point... Fully agree!!

FYI. I got the print from Fineartsamerica.com. It's a digital (dot pattern) print on Epsom photo paper and fluorescent brightly under the blacklight.

I can say that, if you are ever considering ordering from them, the service and packaging was good.

I know a point was made in regards to the tabs. That is certainly an interesting part of this piece as it was not used much during that time and if another item existed with that design it would say something significant.

For anyone doubting the use of tabs, check out this other item from General Gum used in 1934 as well.

Use of tabs look familiar? The height of insertion look familiar?

http://www.moviecard.com/gallery/rcards/r56.html

Also posted on the main forum
 

I think we now have pretty strong evidence that the R310 pictures were issued with Baseball Gum, lending support for the OP's piece being authentic. From last night's REA auction of 93 R310s, including multiple Ruths and Gehrigs, with a description stating "this group is accompanied by pieces of the original display box. These items were just recently discovered in a Midwest warehouse. Incredibly, our consignor, who was involved in the purchase of the building, rescued all of the material from a large trash bin."

https://photos.imageevent.com/imover...aseballgum.jpg

Just remember everyone that I'm one to say "I told you so." :)