It's funny that the "Funnies" issue is brought up again. Someone was using this series as their primary argument for how this piece was NOT genuine. Let's investigate beyond the offer, expiration, and colors.

One could even make a connection to the similar artistic style, printing characteristics, ink, and heck, even the paper aging is similar or nearly identical in the unstained areas. That's only a few attributes I notice at first glance. Now I'm not going to try to track down who the artist was or the manufacturer of the ink used, but dang. The "Funnies" is an arguement for this being genuine, not the opposite. Now I wouldn't lean exclusively on these details, but c'mon.

Paul I have always acknowledged that there is a small possibility that this is real. I did not ask you to get a blacklight test I commented once that a blacklight and a loupe are both handy when looking at items and you not having them caused you to back off those tests.
At some poit soon a major Auction house will probably offer their opinion or an expert will get it in their hands and we will get an answer. Until then I will remain unconvinced.

I'm not sure you "always acknowledged that there is a small possibility that this is real," but at least you are becoming more convinced now! The literature, physical evidence, and facts have overwhelmed you it appears. :)

Regardless of the consensus, I love that items like this make for great, informative discussion.

And expert (DRCY) has already seen high res scans and given his opinion.

Just from the relatively lower res closeups here I can guess at what he saw that made him believe it's actually old.

I believe that with the same scans I'd reach the same conclusion.
From the closeups here, I can only say that I believe it was made using one of the types of typography, either from a carved print block (very much like actual typography) Or from an electrotype plate, a shallower etched form of typography plate.
The details of which one would be readily seen on a high res scan.

No credible evidence has been presented to make us believe it is not authentic. The evidence shown so far points to authentic. Does it really matter and why do people always have to argue and be right? Remain unconvinced. You stated your viewpoint a few times and I think everyone understands it. Restating your opinion will not change the evidence presented thus far. To each his own. Let's move on.

Dankz Steve,

I've been waiting to hear from You...
Your Printing Knowledge has always Enlightened me! (:

Over the years I've Explored David's
Photography educational & teachings through his website.

*Very Cool site David!!!

In the submarine Navy I was my Boats Photographer for some 6 years.
Our Type 18 Periscope was equipped with a 70mm capable of doing Panoramic shots... OMAHA was Designed to transform the pantry into a Dark room Underway... Developed many Cold war items during my time aboard ~

This is an Awesome Piece...
Finding out about it's past is what makes it even Bettar!

And Dankz for the Education Fellars... Truly!!!

I posted this in the thread on the Memorabilia side as well:

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:

Attachment 462075

Attachment 462076

Attachment 462077

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...

Was the tab method actually used on candy boxes of this era? It seems so clunky and undependable. Wouldn't just putting your graphics on the inside of the top, which would be flipped back in the store to make the display, be a much better way? Not sure I remember ever seeing the tab method on anything, but maybe I just never noticed.

The tabs could have been used to connect the Header Card to a Floorstand Display or to a shelf channel. We may never know the purpose unless a vintage image surfaces, or more evidence comes to light.

From last night's REA auction
 

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

Tremendous discovery, thanks for sharing Todd.

That is the missing link, no doubt. R310 was without question connected to General Gum, a Curtiss Candy subsidiary. Curtiss Candy distributed these photos with products beyond just Butterfinger. Calling R310 exclusively a Butterfinger issue is wildly inaccurate. R310 is a Curtiss Candy item.

Curtiss Candy distributed a Movie Stars set around the same time as this Baseball Stars set. Check out the similarities between the Baby Ruth Movie Stars and Butterfinger Baseball Stars store displays. Also, see the similarities between the General Gum boxes.

Nice find Trey! Now the mystery deepens with regard to the OP's piece. If the display piece is authentic or reproduced from an authentic example, it remains to be seen what "large mounted picture" of Ruth was sent to the collector who mailed in the 50 wrappers and stamps. Interestingly, this is at approximately the same time as Goudey issued its large easel version of Ruth in its R309-1 and possibly R340 sets. REA auctioned a variation of the R309-1 "card" a few years ago as an R340:
https://robertedwardauctions.com/auc...ium-babe-ruth/
The pose is highly similar to that used on the basic R310 of Ruth. It could be that the mounted photo of Ruth offered by General Gum looks much the same, unless Goudey had some exclusivity rights to use that specific pose. Note that the offer was the same for Goudey and General Gum-- send in 50 wrappers.

It also remains unknown what the gum wrappers looked like that were needed for the redemption offer. They must have had some markings as opposed to being generic glassines, otherwise the company could be accepting competitor's wrappers. Anyway, more questions to be answered another day:)

double post

That has been one of my theories as well in regards to the Ruth premium. R309-1 is not branded as a Goudey item. I find that slightly odd. If you didn't know any different, it just looks like a generic item. Goudey also distributed many other premium items during that time such as gloves, hats and balls. They would have been using outside vendors. The R309-1 offer shown below expired at the end of 1933, just before R310 was released. Curtiss Candy may have acquired stock from the same outside vendor that Goudey used. Just a theory and a guess, nothing more.

https://robertedwardauctions.com/auc...-display-sign/

Who has an example of an R309-1 or R340 Ruth in a General Gum envelope? :D

I recently found another one of these display pieces in a Mastro auction catalog from April 22-23, 2004. I sent it to the OP, but never got around to posting it here. I thought those following this thread would find it interesting.

Amazing find, Kris! From what I can see of the print alignment, that is probably the source of the image that was found online previously. The dots are connecting on this previously mysterious topic.

Here is a little smoke to the R309-1/R340/Unc Ruth Premium fire. Goudey printing can be connected back to The United States Printing & Lithograph Company headquartered in New York. That's a world away from Curtiss Candy in Chicago, right? Wrong, The United States Printing & Lithograph Company had an office about a mile away from the Curtiss Candy/General Gum plant.

Here are some links to some thought provoking REA items:
https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...ace?itemid=348
https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...ce?itemid=2564

I haven't read this thread in quite some time. I found some new posts that claim to provide evidence that R310 Butterfinger premiums were issued with other candy items. Two of them are the Baseball gum Box and the Movie Star gum box. Yes the boxes are a little larger than 8x10 so they hold R310's well. Is it a surprise that someone who had a pile of R310's kept them in a box that they fit in for protection? Not really.
One post shows 2 Butterfinger ads showing clearly that R310's were issued with Nickel sized Butterfingers and that Movie star photo's similar to R310's ( same size and paper stock) were issued with Nickel sized Butterfingers. But in 90 years no one has come across another similar ad for R310's listing any other candy.
As for the R309 Ruth proof there is another thread that discusses Sport king Premiums and ties the R309 proof to the other Sport King premiums known. Extremely rare yes but they do exist.
Any real Proof that R310's were issued with any other candy...No


Is the OP's piece real or a fantasy piece. In My opinion having handled alot of 1930's ads and premiums is that I would not buy one. But that is just my opinion. I have handled a number of ads that were printed using period cardboard and printing techniques because a number of old press still exist and unfortunately are not always used for honest purpose. Look at the Gehrig Knot hole gang thread..
I wonder if the pice in the Mastro Auction can be tracked down? It might help enlighten this subject.
Jonathan