The 1930 ruth goudey calendar makes another appearance!!

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

cmoking, I don't think so, as why in 1955 would anyone want the 1901 or 1930 calendar year attached to a novelty. If it was a made-up novelty for honest fun and display, they'd want a 1955 calendar attached to the pic of Ruth (ala Brown and Bigelow calendars-- Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb on current calendars). In 2002 I had a calendar of 1800s Renoir paintings on my cork board, but the listed days and months were from 2002. I had no need or desire to know that January 2th 1874 was a Tuesday. The novelty of referring to the days and months of 1874 would wear off about January 3rd-- especially considering I wanted the calendar to know my dentists appointments in 2002. I doubt there were collectors or manufacturers of reprinted calendars in the 1950s, as the originals were dirt cheap to free and there was no need to save money on reprinted versions. In 1955, an original 1925 Babe Ruth calendar in mint condition mint have cost a nickel, or your elderly neighbor might have given it to you for free. Even if you were a collector and baseball fan in the 1950s, what would you want a reprinted version for? Heck, a mint factory sealed reprint from the drug store might have cost more than an original.

I firmly believe that if the "1901" calendar was an honest 1955 Brown & Bigelow-style retro-subject novelty for stores and catalogs, it would have the months and days from 1955 not 1901. From a purely marketing and sales standpoint, 99.9 percent of the calendar buying public wanted calendars that listed the months of the current and upcoming year. If you told people on the street that you were chief of marketing and your company was coming out with a brand new 1956 calendar that lists only the days and months of 1901, they'd look at you as if you were insane.

If in 1955, you were honestly trying to make money marketing interesting retro-prints of Hair Tonic ads and collectible old time-style jumbo picture cards of Babe Ruth, you would omit the out dated calendar part, as approximately none of the potential buyers had any interest in out dated calendar text.

Besides, even your theory says that the 1901 calendar is not from 1901.