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

This ended Sunday on Ebay:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/36338437797...p2047675.l2557

Any thoughts on it's authenticity?

No opinion on authenticity; however, the age of the photos made me chuckle.

I'll play. No good.

never heard of babe ruth gum...no good imo.

It's not Babe Ruth Gum, it's you get a Free pix of Ruth through the General Gum Co in Chicago which there was:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/14358102630...p2047675.l2557

I say real judging by the back as I can't honestly see anyone doing that back there to sell a fake? But then again, because this is just a guess, I really have no idea if someone would?

That level of paper fading/weathering on the back would be hard to replicate. It appears to have been in a stack of paper stuff or a window for a very long time. I believe it to be a authentic.

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 :D

Perhaps a true Ebay gem!?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

FYI, I found this with a google search.
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...tion-road.html

another point in favor of "fake!"

Pete, not saying you are right or wrong, but what do you know about this Site?

Are they all fakes, fantasy pieces?

Are these Real or Fantasy:

https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...tion-road.html

https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...tion-road.html

i suppose the fact that this image was just uploaded in 2019...and that they are selling pillows and such with the image...lead me to think even more its a fantasy piece.

i may be wrong?

I saw that when I was looking too. The interesting thing about that image is the print shift going on in the color red. The red shifts both left and up, which you would see in traditional printing. The one in question would not be a direct copy of that. If we are talking forgery, the one in question and the source for this image would have been traditionally printed. Sure, that is certainly possible. These would not have been computer generated, unless again, this very high level forger decided to tweak the print alignment. So if real, there is at least one other copy stashed away. If fake, there is another variation floating around.

Haha! I saw that too, the pillows and phone cases.....but looks like that is the case for every item on that Site:

https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...tion-road.html

I wouldn't mind some bathroom wallpaper of this one, if they sold it.

If anything I think it at least shows the Ruth sign is NOT a "Fantasy" piece......doesn't mean it isn't a "Reproduction", but looks to be a legit Ad from back in the 1930's. So very cool he who found this.

Judging by the fact that they are priced from $18 - $33, I think it's safe to say they are fake.

of course "those" are fakes/repros........it's a Site that makes phone cases, and pillows of these old baseball pieces. I was saying were the items copied from "REAL" ones or from "fantasy" ones.

Real ones.

Hey, don't blame me for you gaining confidence! I'm not THAT confident. :D

I admit when I first saw it, I thought no way. The staining looks odd and we've seen this story before. We've all seen the fake Tuxedo's, etc. I'm just not sure I'm ready to say that just because something has strange staining, it means it's not genuine.

Also, I'm not ready to admit that something that was intended to be in a landfill after a few months would be a common item. I just can't imagine items like this would be available by the hundreds today. We're not talking about a 1933 Goudey Ruth here. These were not something that a young kid collected and cherished, then passed down for generations. We are talking about something that a store owner would have absolutely no use for and would throw it in the trash when it was time. I'll even dare to say that there are probably many store advertisements from various companies that have completely vanished. I wouldn't find that too odd.

We're looking at a few, not so terrific, pictures from 2010. :) I still think it could go either way, but I'm not sure I can call it fake because it's stained and rare.

Voting FAKE!
 

For those of us that have been around for years, there has been many bogus fantasy pieces created to deceive that have had the faded background.

If a piece is authentic there should be sometime of period advertising which describes it.

Voting a big FAT no!

Patrick

I love the research and feedback that is happening on this one.

I see Trey's argument for this being related to the Butterfinger premiums, but I am still left with a several questions.

1 - I find it a bit odd that they wouldn't reprint the piece with a design change instead of stapling a piece of paper over the top - that paper could be removed and then you have an ad out there for something you won't deliver and people will get mad.

2 - If this was put out there with the bottom left covered up, I am not sure how this promotion works because all that is left showing is an 8x10 of your favorite baseball player and 2 sticks of gum for 1 penny. No mailing instructions, no wrappers, etc. The Ruth premium would have cost 50 wrappers and 5 cents in stamps, and yet according to this, the 8 x 10 premiums almost would have had to have been given away at the point of sale to anyone who bought two sticks of gum for a penny? Doesn't that seem a bit out of line in terms of a promotion? Especially when Butterfinger gave 1 premium away for a 5 cent candy bar. On the other hand, maybe it explains the low quality of the Butterfinger premiums? The 48 Leaf premiums seem like they are on similar paper, but you had to buy an entire box of 1948 Leaf to get one of those (I think).

3 - Has anyone ever heard of a brand name called Baseball Gum?

I am hoping this is real, just enjoying the puzzle.

Yah, I'm not THAT confident either, at best 50/50, and maybe even 51/49 against..........but.......similar to what you are saying REA also says about that about the following in 2020 of a "newly discovered" 1930's Display Piece:

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

TBD

11 yrs old photos. What could possibly go wrong? It looks a bit like contrived aging to me.

.

The photos are not 11 years old, I think its the camera the seller is using. He never programmed in the date or its not working. It has that 2010 date on ALL of his items:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/36337844078...IAAOSwHYdgi4xQ

https://www.ebay.com/itm/36339195939...wAAOSw~55gmfv~

I assume this is for the "doubleheader coins" set from the 1930s? What a cool piece.

I was first loser on the sign and think it's good. If you feel differently once you have it in hand I will be suprised.

"The losers now will be later to win," Dylan wrote, and I think you're going to be very happy that you weren't involved in this thing.

comments attached

Once it is in-hand, blacklighting it will be the biggest "tell".

Pretty simple... If it does not fluoresce, I believe it is indeed authentic.

In my experience, this is by no means a definitive test. there are numerous modern cards and reprints that dont fluoresce.if it does fluoresce, it is modern. If it doesn’t, it could be anything. Not all modern paper stock uses optical brighteners.

I am leaning towards it being authentic anyway. The black light test would be just another "positive". If this was a repro or fantasy piece, we would likely have seen more of them littering the internet.

Most repros do not have machine-cut "tabs" like that either. They would not go to that level of expense to create a fantasy piece such as this. The cost of doing so would far exceed the price realized.

well
 

For what it's worth - I was focused on the tabs as well....... Would be an unusual amount of effort for likely few hundred dollar sale. When I was a more serious collector - I had subscriptions to 3/4 repro/fantasy catalogs just to keep "current".

Hung Jury?
 

So it arrived today. I "think" it is real, but would really like to run it by someone with more experience.

Also, my black light is not working, so need to find someone with a black light, although as previously mentioned that doesn't solidify that it is authentic just because it doesn't glow, that would however confirm if it was a Repro if it did.

I really prefer someone who knows these type items and could confirm.

So anyone here in the Chicago Suburbs or Southeastern Wisconsin. I can run it over if you are not too far away.

Paul sure would be great if this piece turns out like that D and M Jackson point of sale item a few years back, awesome pick up there Sir.

It would be great if this checks out! Do you have a loupe? Or a good scanner? If you have a scanner, you might scan a small section at really high DPI and post that for people to take a look at.

No loupe.....I can go in to work on Monday and use their scanner, and give that a shot, and post.

I have a magnifying glass, but is that strong enough, prob not. What am I looking for, dots, blurriness?

Good luck, Paul. I hope it's good.

I think the saddest thing about this thread is that the OP's black light doesn't work. I could never get even a moment's sleep if I didn't look up to my wall and see these guys greeting me each night...

Attachment 458179

Just some general advice for everyone, make sure that that you get a 365 nm UV source if you're interested in looking for fluorescence. 390+ nm UV flashlights are cheap but they put out way too much visible light, and cause far too little fluorescence to be useful. I learned this the hard way. Most things you simply can't tell if they fluoresce or not with a cheap UV light, everything is awash in its violet glow. The Weltool M2-BF 365 nm LED flashlight is highly recommended for anyone who's interested.

Haha it is sad my black light has died, had it since the 70's and worked last time I plugged it in 5 years ago.

Might be time to invest in a new one.

Thank you he who provided the specifics on which one to get.

Chad - would this one work:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/14362174060...0AAOSwmCZe1b80


Surely, (don't call me Shirley), there has to be someone on NET54 in the Chicagoland area with some knowledge.

Bueller? Bueller?

I think David Cycleback is at Northwestern University and is an expert - also a board member. You might shoot him a pm.

As for looking at the printing, you are looking for halftone, see pg 80-84 of David's book:

https://cycleback.files.wordpress.co..._an_intr-1.pdf

I felt strongly the back was authentic looking. Hard to tell about the front from the picture. I don't see many people being able to fake that light fading on cardboard. That happens naturally and it looked like the real thing to me compared to many paper items in my collection. I do hope it's real as it is a very cool piece.

forensic evaluation is in order...David!

Just saw this and I come out on the 100% fake side. If this was a cell phone case or a throw pillow I might say 99%. I saw some of these items at Michael's or Hobby Lobby and recognized the image right away.
I would be looking for a refund.
J

As for a Curtis Candy sign 0% chance of that Ruth hated them. Ruth never saw a dime from them. Curtis candy claimed to have named it after President Clevland's Daughter Ruth. But won a copyright dispute against a Bar named after Babe Ruth.
J

"......lil' help"
 

So since I'm not getting any replies from anyone in the Chicagoland area where I can drive it over to them, is there anyone here who is confident they could tell if it is real or fake if they had it in their possession?

I prefer someone who is certain they could, if in hand, and then prove why it is or isn't. Not just "doesn't look good", or "it has that look", or "yah I think it's good."
I need certainty, one way or the other.

I will pay for shipping to and from.

PM me and give me a little info how you are going to prove or disprove, and/or if you have similar pieces from that time frame.

His Net54 username is drcy

It's unusual that an image of a new discovery from an antique dealer would already be a stock image for t-shirts and posters and coffee mugs at a large online print shop. The print shop found the only other one known back in 2019, and without fanfare, used it for pillow cases? Do they still have their original?

That would be highly unusual. It looks like that seller takes copies of a wide range of rare items and turns them into pillow cases. Here are a few more Ruth pillow cases you can have made, along with examples from a few auction houses. The fact that this seller sells copies doesn't delegitimize original items. One could argue that it's actually a rather impressive archive of a wide array of images.

Ruth Baseball Game
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...tion-road.html
https://loveofthegameauctions.com/lot-10015.aspx

Ruth Award Certificate
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...tion-road.html
https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c.../50023-50135.s

Ruth Membership Card
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...tion-road.html
https://robertedwardauctions.com/auc...ling-envelope/

Ruth Old Gold
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...tion-road.html
https://goldinauctions.com/magnifice...v-lot9948.aspx

I'm not thinking any of the above items are fantasy pieces. All of them appear to have been loaded in 2019, so that doesn't change much.

Wherever that seller got the image of the item in question, it is different as can be seen with examination. If that seller did save an image of a fantasy item, it's odd no more examples can be found. The source of the other image is rather interesting. Looking at them next together and examining the red print shift and print flaws, it appears that neither is a modern digital copy of the other. Even the tab alignments vary, but remain consistent.

Just PM'd him. We'll see. Thanks Jobu!

Here's the coffee mug. Doesn't the image appear to be in mint condition? If this piece is newly discovered this week on ebay, how did the print shop already have the image?

So many questions, this thread is really interesting. Just based on its appearance, which to my eyes just doesn't look naturally aged or toned, I'm pretty sure it's a fake, but where did the forger get that fabulous image to copy if nobody here has ever seen one? And as many have pointed out, if they put it together themselves, where are the things from which they amalgamated to create this, and what a lot of effort (and skill) to go to to make $500 or even a grand doing it! What about the seller? Have they been contacted to try to get an answer about where they got it? That mug is great, by the way, I wouldn't mind drinking my coffee out of one. But where did THEY get the image?

Yeah, it certainly wouldn't be newly discovered. Relatively unknown sounds better, if it checks out.

A test is to look at the other stuff the seller sells. If it is also antique stuff that appears authentic, that means the seller appears to have a running knowledge, feel and experience for old stuff.

When I would buy expensive rare antique photos on eBay I would always check what else the seller sold. If he sold other photos that I knew were authentic that was evidence the seller had knowledge about what he was selling. From the variety of other antique photos the seller sold and the knowledgeable ways he described them, you could quickly identify a seller who knew old photos.

On the flip side, if the seller is selling nothing else remotely related to the rare item or a lot of cheap reprints and fakes, you know you should have strong skepticism.

I'm not really sure that really helps in determining the authenticity of this piece. Yes if the seller had a Feedback of (0) or even (18) that would be a HUGE flag. OR......if they sold Fakes as you mentioned, but that is pretty much a no-brainer with sellers to avoid and doesn't apply here. His Feedback is like (1800) and no history of fakes.

And just because they sell antiques I don't know that would qualify them for knowing if this piece was fake or real. They can't know every category of item. Shit Rick Harrison has bought a few fakes, and while some may not like Rick, I feel he does have a wide array of knowledge. And I personally have great knowledge and can tell Real vs. Fake on vintage baseballs & vintage tickets, but i couldn't guarantee a Real/Fake autograph or vintage W.S. pin. So this seller may know some antiques, but not others. So again sorry, but I can't get on board with the knowledgeable antique seller theory. It's very hard to know all baseball memorabilia.

I thought you, since you wrote on Fakes/Reproductions would know from the material, the coloring, the printing, the aging, etc. that you spoke of in your very interesting book that Bryan mentions (and provides a link to) in Post 46 of this thread?

[QUOTE=Shoeless Moe;2103536]I'm not really sure that really helps in determining the authenticity of this piece.

Of course it helps Drcy is pointing out one ( And there are many tests ) to help YOU determine if it is real. Bob F
Who collects Advertising signs, I am sure could give you many other tips for YOU to decide if it is real. And many on this thread have offered tests to help such as Black light, examining under a loop. Now I understand all of these test require knowledge of what to expect and I know from experience that some sellers of fakes are very very good at what they do. But you came on here asking for opinions.. and some gave that. But some took the time to offer direction on how to narrow down some facts about the piece. Black light bulbs work in any desk lamp and dark room. Loupes are easy to buy and inexpensive. ( But you backed off both suggestions)
Then there is reseach if this is a fake then what is the root image that gave the person developing the fake inspiration? Because successful fakes often make you think it is very close to an item or items you have seen before.
Are there others using this image on recent items (Yes).
All of these tests add up to a more informed opinion. To test ink or materials in a lab is way beyond most folks reach. But the feel of paper, examining the glue. All the things Drcy wrote about in that book. Looking up on youtube how to age paper so that it is easier to see when these techniques are used. All of these things can help You determine real from fake.
Just like you learned cards and tickets by handling them over time paper is still paper. And I know good fakes can be printed on old paper. But real items check every box as real. Items that dont I stay away from.

[QUOTE=bigfanNY;2103638]Thanks Jonathan. I'm still working with David as he just emailed me within the past hour to send him pix and I just now did that. I will post those here too. I have not backed off from a loupe or black light, I just do not have either. Like I said I'm up for paying shipping to and from or paying for someone's opinion. I just want this over with one way or the other, fake or real.

Now that it is in hand he are some pix
 

let me know if anyone sees anything good or bad. If you want larger pix(Net54 has a max. DPI), pm me with a personal email and I'll send them to you.

and
 

more...

and
 

last 2...

I notice when comparing the coffee mug/towels pix if you look at the Red letters in the words BASEBALL GUM at the top there is white in those letters whereas on this sign they are fully Red.

https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...tion-road.html

Does that mean anything?

What about smell, Paul? I remember many years ago old-timers telling me that they always smelled things first, maybe even cards, that something this old should smell at least a little musty. Especially this piece, which looks like it has gone through...well, what is it supposed to have gone through to have suffered that much uneven browning? Exposure to moisture? Air? Both? Shouldn't it smell a bit funky?

I just looked at the close-up images, in particular the printing details, along with all the other images.

If the cardstock has all the signs of being old (smells musty, foxing, passes the blacklight test), I am confident it is original and authentic.
This isn't just from some general "feel" or "impression." I was looking for distinct printing and ink details in the close-up image. Plus I considered all the other images and evidence.

The funky staining made me wonder too at first. However, I don't think it's deceptive toning but water damage or staining it got sometime over the years.

This would be an item worthy of restoration and cleaning.

Eric, This is funny... However, i still use my ole' Canon & I've never set my date either... 10-12 years ole' now!

As for the Babe's Promo... It has a lot of attributes towards being real!
Might be worth 3-5 K !?

Definitely smells musty.

Then it is original.

Wow! Thank you David. I really appreciate and value your knowledge and opinion. I think the next step is getting that black light, so it can pass or fail one last test you, Chad, Trey, Jonathan and others have mentioned. Then possibly off for restoration.

Bryan(Jobu) referred me to this place:

https://www.graphicconservation.com/contact/

If not too crazy expensive.

Looking forward to Anson's blog post on this one. He could say something like..."A piece of Babe Ruth, card-related memorabilia, which has been casually recognized by Soccer Mom's across the globe for years through Hobby Lobby and Michael's has been newly discovered by the baseball card hobby by veteran collector, Shoeless Moe..."

Looked at the website, just send the pics & your info, sound like they will give you an estimate

It is an original what? Nothing against Drcy and his knowledge .....but ..General gum of Chicago issued a set of Funnies in 1934. And it is well documented as many hobby "Godfathers" were active collecting at the time. I am not aware of a series of 8x10 pictures of Baseball stars being issued by "Baseball gum" or a Mounted Babe Ruth picture attributed to them.
The Hobby is aware of small obscure issues like Sawyers Biscuits from Chicago. But the ACC missed Baseball gum from Chicago?
Now it could have been created in marketing and never made it to the storefront. But 2 sticks for a penny? Late in the depression when a stick of gum was the size of todays candy bar.
Time will tell but the image itself I guarantee will be seen in antique fairs and flea markets across the country. I will not be buying one. List this on the Memorabilia side and maybe more info will turn up.
Jmho..

Interesting thread. I am very curious about the 8x10 pictures and whether they are the same used by Butterfinger. I thought the same as Brian when I first saw the ad-- the pricing point seemed way off when compared to the candy bar. The other thing that troubles me somewhat is how the gum was packaged. I disagree that the gum itself had to be as large as today's candy bars. I still have a 1933 Uncle Jacks pack, coupon and gum, and the gum itself is no different than a typical stick of chewing gum-- you can also find Wrigley's and other gum wrappers from the '30's on the Internet that show very much like they have in recent times.

So here's my issue. The Uncle Jacks, with its cheap, non-advertising glassine wrapper, still had stiffeners to protect the gum--a baseball card and a coupon. Assuming this "Baseball gum" was not sold as loose sticks, how was it wrapped and wouldn't there naturally be some sort of indicator of the manufacturer? A coupon, or printing on the wrapper, or something else? The Ruth offer talks of wrappers, but nothing has surfaced as I understand it.

I believe the 1934 Canadian Butterfingers were obtained as premiums from O-Pee-Chee, so a gum company affiliation here would not be all that surprising. Does anyone know how those were acquired? I know they are considered premiums, but that tells me some gum packaging had to exist that alerted the customer how to get them. Are there known O-pee-chee coupons or wrappers from 1934?

Plus I've seen repro Goudey advertising pieces printed modern and mounted to old cardboard stock. They are pretty convincing if you just look at, and smell, the old cardboard stand which has legitimate age. I'm not saying it's fake. I don't know enough and would never pass judgement without holding it, but I don't think smell is enough to be conclusive.

Jonathan, I'm not familiar with the Butterfinger premium from 1934 at all. So I'm learning here as we go. Do you or anyone know why there were photos with that Butterfinger info printed on it and others without it? Is it known for certain those are all from the same Butterfinger offer, or could that be 2 different offers? edited to add reading one auction house's reason is the Red ones were believed to be the Diplay Pieces for the Offer and the photos without the red ink were then the Premium....makes sense.


Last, "if" this here piece is authentic I lean more toward the Promo that never materialized theory on this. I believe Trey had a few theories early on in this thread. And your disbelief in "2 sticks for a penny" leads credence to a possible cancellation of the Promo. Or maybe they couldn't get Ruth on board with the Gum/Offer so it was scrapped.

Scott, you need to read each post in the thread, no one said smell alone is enough to be conclusive.

Paul. My understading is that R310's were issued in boxes of 50. They are the thin fragile 8x10 prints. The cardboard stock with red printing versions were ment to be displayed showing that along with your Buttetfinger you got whichever print was on top of the pile of 50.
Most of the cardboard stock versions that I have come across were St. Louis players. Players from other teams have been confirmed a number in the past 10 years. Over the past 40 so years when I have purchased original collections from the 1930's a number have had a few Butterfingers and at least twice I have had heard stories of how they were sold with Butterfingers directly from collectors. And at one point My Dad and I were very close to a complete set of R310's and had according to my old checklist 4 overprints.
But as I mentioned earlier there was extreme bad blood between Curtis candy and Babe Ruth so I cannot see them obtaining a license to offer a Ruth Premium.
As for your poster I downloaded this from the web site of the folks that offer these as fantasy items. If you enlarge you can see the same tabs as on your poster. Much easier to see on their site under stationary.
Hope this helps.

J