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

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

If you look closely at the bottom right and left of this photo you can see the same tabs as the OP piece.

You've posted that a couple times, what is your point? That the current picture matches the piece from the 1930's? I would hope it would. They obviously copied it from the original. Thank you for proving it existed at one point.

Also, where are your comments on the black light test? You pushed me to get that done. I did. Radio silence.

Also, saw a lot of flea markets and garage sales this weekend. I'm sure you and others did as well, waiting for all these to pop up like you said. So far none have been posted.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

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.

and for such bad blood Curtiss sure liked to live on the edge....

[Shoeless Moe]

AWFUL NEWS FOLKS - and I hate to be the barer of bad news, but the '52 Mantle never existed:

https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...product=poster

https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...uct=coffee-mug

https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...oduct=yoga-mat

You all can throw them away or actually send them to me, I'll get rid of them for you.


Right Jonathan?

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

AWFUL NEWS FOLKS - and I hate to be the barer of bad news, but the '52 Mantle never existed:

https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...product=poster

https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...uct=coffee-mug

https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...oduct=yoga-mat

You all can throw them away or actually send them to me, I'll get rid of them for you.


Right Jonathan?

That's why I didn't understanding the reasoning behind the arguments that this site was evidence the Gum Ball item was fake. The site reproduces known authentic/original items. It seemed to me that the Gum Ball was on there too was evidence that there was an original somewhere.

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

and for such bad blood Curtiss sure liked to live on the edge....

Yes it was many years of Bad Blood. The Baby Ruth Candy Bar first appeared in 1921 and the Date on the Baby Ruth gum ad was 1929. Curtiss took full advantage of the great success of the Baby Ruth bar. And unless the Bambino name was copyright by someone they were free to use that name as well. If it worked before why not keep it up?
Babe Ruth Candy co was Formed in 1926 and competed directly against Baby Ruth when it issued the Home Run Bar.
In 1931 the case went to court and they found in favor of Curtiss Candy. Babe Ruth candy ceased opereations shortly after losing the case in 1931.
So not only did Ruth not receive a penny for the sales of Baby Ruth he was out legal fees and had to shut down a revenue stream.
My Statements About Curtiss and Ruth really dont have anything to do with your sign which is labeled as coming from General Gum, Not Curtiss Candy. Aside from the fact that your sign lists an address known to be used By Curtiss Candy. But to date no proof exists that General gum did in fact have offices at that address in 1934/1935.

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

AWFUL NEWS FOLKS - and I hate to be the barer of bad news, but the '52 Mantle never existed:

https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...product=poster

https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...uct=coffee-mug

https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...oduct=yoga-mat

You all can throw them away or actually send them to me, I'll get rid of them for you.


Right Jonathan?

Paul I looked at the site and although they sell images of the front of the 1952 Mantle in various sizes. They do not sell them in the same size as issued by Topps with both the front and back printed.
Now a number of other printers have issued cards the same size as 1952 topps with both rhe Front and Back printed as the 1952 Mantle. These reproductions have caused a number of collectors to spend their hard earned money on reproductions
They DO Sell a sign that is the same size as yours with a printed front and blank back that has the same tabs just like the one you purchased on Ebay.
Unfortunately although many ( but not all) of the images sold by this vender are of original advertisements. Not everyone who purchases them resells them as reproductions. They turn up regularly at flea markets and Antique fairs....and once in a while on ebay altered to make them appear older than they are.

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

My Statements About Curtiss and Ruth really dont have anything to do with your sign which is labeled as coming from General Gum, Not Curtiss Candy. Aside from the fact that your sign lists an address known to be used By Curtiss Candy. But to date no proof exists that General gum did in fact have offices at that address in 1934/1935.

To date proof DOES exist that Paul's item is connected to a CURTISS CANDY COMPANY BUILDING, plant #3 to be more specific.

Keep bringing completely bogus theories to the discussion. Everything that you bring up keeps adding to the overwhelming evidence and facts because everything you've said has been the exact opposite of reality. Without your help we wouldn't know as much as we now do, I'm sure many appreciate that. You've been a great help in validating this item and creating serious doubt in regards to Butterfinger having much to do with R310 at all.

The following is from a very specific publication that spells it out rather clearly:

[Shoeless Moe]

Jonathan lighten up, I obviously was joking on the Mantle, have a beer, enjoy life........after that beer check this out:
General Gum Inc.'s other offer that year has a lot of very similar features as this offer, the same expiration date, the same colors used, similar offer details. Again making this highly likely General Gum had the Ruth offer, whether it went forward or was scrapped is the only question. Can you admit that at least this was a possibility? Just a Yes or No will suffice.

[Shoeless Moe]

Joanthan if your still holding on to THAT Site being your argument, send me the link to the one you feel is the same as mine, I'll order it and do the black light test on it, remember the black light test, that would be the one you refuse to acknowledge after asking me to do it.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Joanthan if your still holding on to THAT Site being your argument, send me the link to the one you feel is the same as mine, I'll order it and do the black light test on it, remember the black light test, that would be the one you refuse to acknowledge after asking me to do it.

I can almost promise you that all the items from that site with fluoresce brightly, including the coffee cups.

The item obviously is original and authentic. I don't believe there is any reason for debate anymore.

Even the "refuting" evidence posted supports it being authentic.

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

General Gum Inc.'s other offer that year has a lot of very similar features as this offer, the same expiration date, the same colors used, similar offer details. Again making this highly likely General Gum had the Ruth offer, whether it went forward or was scrapped is the only question.

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.

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Joanthan if your still holding on to THAT Site being your argument, send me the link to the one you feel is the same as mine, I'll order it and do the black light test on it, remember the black light test, that would be the one you refuse to acknowledge after asking me to do it.

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.

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

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

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.

[conor912]

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

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

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.

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.

[irishdenny]

Originally Posted by steve B

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.

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!!!

[jerseygary]

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:

Screen Shot 2021-06-04 at 12.13.39 PM.jpg

Screen Shot 2021-06-04 at 12.13.58 PM.jpg

Screen Shot 2021-06-04 at 12.14.06 PM.jpg

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...

[Hankphenom]

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.

[perezfan]

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.

[nolemmings]

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."

[oldeboo]

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.

[nolemmings]

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

[oldeboo]

double post

[oldeboo]

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?

[Kris19]

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.

[oldeboo]

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

[bigfanNY]

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