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