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

[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.

[bigfanNY]

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

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

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

Thanks for the Butterfinger info......good info.......but, as for that Site with these product, if anything it being on that Site adds to that is once was a real item.

As Trey pointed out all those baseball items on that Site that become coffee mugs, pillow cases etc are taking from what once were Real items:


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 have a few emails out to Conservators, about restoring, I would think they would know if old or modern. I also have a black light on the way in the mail.

[oldeboo]

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.

Through your years of seeing this set, have you ever seen an R310 Ruth with the Butterfinger overprint? Do you find it strange that Ruth would be included with the standard set if the blood was so bad? Are you thinking the Ruth photo from the standard set came from somewhere besides Butterfinger? Curious about your thoughts, as you are someone that has dealt with R310 a good bit.

[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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

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

It seemed to be a final arbiter though. Like smell was the linchpin in the case for authenticity, and, in a case like I mentioned, smell is irrelevant.

[drcy]

Paul emailed me a bunch of closeup images, some that I don't believe that were posted here.