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

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

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.

[Hankphenom]

I'll play. No good.

[ullmandds]

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

[Shoeless Moe]

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

[irv]

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.

[oldeboo]

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

Perhaps a true Ebay gem!?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Eric72

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

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

.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Leon

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~

[irishdenny]

Originally Posted by Eric72

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

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 !?

[Shoeless Moe]

Definitely smells musty.

[drcy]

Then it is original.

[Shoeless Moe]

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.

[RCMcKenzie]

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..."

[jcmtiger]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

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.

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

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by drcy

Then it is original.

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..

[nolemmings]

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?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

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..

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.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

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.

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

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

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..

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.