Butterfinger and related sets of "cards"

[nolemmings]

Good catch Trey.

It seems that Old Cardboard has listed the R310 subjects found with the red overprint display ads, and they are:

Bartell, Berger, Boyle, Carleton, Chapman, (Rip) Collins, Derringer, Earnshaw, Frey, Frisch, Gehrig, Grabowski, Moore, O’Farrell, Ott, Spohrer, and Swetonic. Five of these are St. Louis Cardinals.


This looks to be consistent with my memory (Carleton and O’Farrell are among the most common if I recall correctly), although I can check old records for more. Please feel free to post scans of these or any others. Again, note that none of the 17 that carry this ad can be found in the Canadian version, with the possible exception of Lou Gehrig if confirmed. It will be interesting to see if anyone can show a Ducky Medwick or Rogers Hornsby example with red ad overprint, as they are two more Cardinals who do not appear in the Canadian version.

As for the base set, it is also heavy on players who appeared for the Cardinals in either 1933 or 1934 and, upon a cursory review, it appears that not a single Chicago Cub is represented. That is curious, given Curtiss/Butterfinger was produced in Chicago and the Cubs at the time had four HOFers along with ace Lon Warneke.

Anyway, here is another of my faves:

[trdcrdkid]

Here's my Swetonic:

[nolemmings]

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeboo View Post
What FACTS show that ALL of the R310s were released by Curtiss/BUTTERFINGER?

Some FACTS that we know:
FACT 1. V94 O-Pee-Chee product was named BASEBALL GUM
FACT 2. Box topper from OP shows a General Gum product named BASEBALL GUM
FACT 3. Box topper from OP shows the same address for General Gum as one of the properties that Curtiss Candy operated
FACT 4. Box topper from OP describes 8x10 pictures which are, perhaps, coincidentally the same size as R310
FACT 5. Not even ONE overprinted BUTTERFINGER R310 has been found that exists in the V94 BASEBALL GUM set (wonder why that would be)
FACT 6. More R310 subjects exist than V94 BASEBALL GUM subjects (again, wonder why that would be)
FACT 7. General Gum had product names that were very, well, general, such as Movie Gum and Button Gum
FACT 8. It would be much more likely for an overprinted BUTTERFINGER to exist than a standard box topper ad which would be more disposable. It's not a stretch to say store owners would have given away used or extra BUTTERFINGER ads when new orders came in. It's also not a stretch to say the BUTTERFINGER overprint is different than a standard store ad/box topper because it so closely resembles the actual product. (call that an opinion if you wish)
FACT 9. Only a "FOXX" variation has been found in the V94 BASEBALL GUM set
FACT 10. There is a "FOXX" and "FOX" variation found in R310
FACT 11. Babe Ruth has not been confirmed with a BUTTERFINGER(Curtiss Candy) overprint
FACT 12. Wonderful hobby resources, such as the ACC, have been wrong before or incomplete
FACT 13. For a long time people in the hobby incorrectly called V94...BUTTERFINGER (sound familiar?)
FACT 14. The standard R310 has nothing printed on it to clearly identify brand
FACT 15. There have been 65 black and white photos printed on roughly 8x10 thin stock identified, with NO branding, that have been categorized as R310
FACT 16. An O-PEE-CHEE BASEBALL GUM document describes "A large 6.5x8.5 picture of your favorite baseball star"
FACT 17. The OP item describes "A large 8x10 picture of your favorite baseball star"

That's a few to start...

Is it significant that there have been plenty of overprinted BUTTERFINGERS found, but NONE of them exist in the V94 BASEBALL GUM set?
Yes, and that's an OPINION based on FACTS.

What is the likelihood that a supplemental distribution occurred from another brand that would be identical to the R310 BUTTERFINGERS?
Very high, and that's an OPINION based on FACTS.

I can form a long list of OPINIONS based on FACTS, but I'll just start with the two above.

Really curious to see the FACTS that prove R310 was exclusive to BUTTERFINGER. There are a lot of OPINIONS being formed here, but let's base them off of FACTS.




Thanks for the concise summary Trey. It lays it out well.

Jonathan,

Yes, I became familiar with the Ruth and Curtiss Company legal dispute, oh, about 35 years ago. So why haven’t you answered the question– if Butterfinger and only Butterfinger sold the R310 pictures, why is Ruth in the set? You have basically said that the OP’s ad piece could not be real because Ruth would never have allowed his picture to serve as the mail-in premium on account of his feud with Curtiss. Yet there he is in what you call the Butterfinger set, one of the Curtiss Company’s best performers. How do you explain this inconsistency?

And as for the term “boxtoppers”, I do not know that these overprint, cardboard versions of the R310 pictures were for certain placed in/on the box or whether instead they were dropped off by salesman to be used as counter or window display pieces. If you are certain then we will use your term. I am unaware of any newspaper or other advertising from the time where Butterfinger promotes the pictures–the only evidence we have that they did is these cardboard overprint pieces, which do not tell us how many to collect.

And sure, I understand that these ad overprints were not intended to be collected separately at the time, and yes the paper shortage occasioned by WWII impacted what has survived, but I find those explanations unsatisfactory. There are only 17 of 65 subjects known to have these Butterfinger ads. If as you say you at one time collected the set, then you know that there are multiples, and I mean a dozen or so for sure, of certain players like Bob O’Farrell and Tex Carleton. I stopped tracking them years ago but I am confident in saying that each of the 17 except maybe Gehrig has several copies known. It collides with the laws of probability, IMHO, to say that no examples survived for 3/4 of the subjects but that a dozen or so copies can be found for each of the rest. Put differently, it is hard to explain how there are probably 200 or so of these advertising overprints known but all of them are of 17 subjects, with ZERO known for the rest. While some more may surface in the coming years, it still butts with common sense to say that all 65 had the overprint and it is simply fate and the sands of time that took most of them out of existence. It is far more likely that not all 65 had the overprint in the first place, and if you accept that to be true, then there remains the question of whether all 65 pictures of R310 were in fact put out by Butterfinger. Maybe, maybe not.

[bigfanNY]

Trey/ Todd
Happy to offer what I know about Butterfingers issue of premiums ACC desinnation R310. So the issue is was Butterfinger / Curtiss Candy the only company to issue R310's.
The overprints offer clear proof that Butterfinger offered the premiums designated R310 with their candy bar.
17 Differant overprints exist with certin St louis players having a greater known population than most. This would indicate that the printer created a sheet or a couple of sheets Generally these things are done in even numbers so 6 or 8 maybe. Printed the photos on heavier cardboard stock then overprinted the Butterfinger ad. With some sheets either being printed in greater quanity or certin players being on multiple sheets. No need to print every card in the set. Seems like a needless expense. 1939 playballs had an overprint on the back of all the cards in the 1st series. But the sheets already existed. No Extra work involved. You make a point of the fact that no V94's have been found with an overprint. But we know that they were sold with gum not candy bars so makes sense marketing would differ.
As for Why Ruth in set despite Bad blood between Ruth and Curtiss candy. Simple whoever licensed the set of Baseball players had authority to included Ruth. And That is very different than going to Ruth or Christy Walsh and obtaining a license for Ruth to endorse the product and the premium.
You bring up V94's a similar set licensed by OPC in canada. The Only Foxx in V94 is the corrected version so makes sense issued slightly later than R310. And NO RUTH.. did Ruth and or Walsh reach out and order Ruth and Gehrig pulled? No proof of that ...but there aint no Ruth and there ain't no Gehrig.
Yes 2 sets licensed in 2 countries by 2 companies.
I cannot say for certin that Curtiss was the only company to issue R310's but they were Nationally distributed by them a really big company with a sharp legal team. And no information has popped up in the last 87 years to show any other company issued R310's. And while I cannot say for certin that v94's were only issued by OPC,those same 87 years passed and no other proof has surfaced....well you get what I am saying.
This began for me when I asked if the General gum sign is real then where is the card set described on the ad? Why is there no General gum baseball set when the General gum Funnies set was cataloged long ago?
The reply I got from T and T was that R310 was the set...But I just dont see any proof behind that statement. All the facts Known point to them being issued in The USA by Curtiss candy and Butterfingers. For another large candy Manufacturer in Chicago same city as Curtis to compete on the small candy counters accross the country with the same set of premiums? Just make no sense to me why General gum would do that. And that there is no record of Curtiss suing General gum or anyone else over this issue. I believe R310's were licensed and issued by Curtiss alone. But I am certainly open to any proof that I am mistaken.

[oldeboo]

"You make a point of the fact that no V94's have been found with an overprint." I certainly didn't make that point. I stated the FACT that no documented R310 Butterfinger overprint subjects have been found in the regular V94 set. Maybe that was not clear enough, I'll give the benefit.

As to the rest of that very long paragraph, if that's what you want to call that, it's full of nothing of significance to this discussion. You offer "certin" wild speculation, pure guesses, and uninformed theory. That's perfectly fine and dandy though if that's what you prefer. I prefer to look at the FACTS. The one take away you offer is that some R310s had Butterfinger overprints and some didn't, we all knew that already.

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

Trey/ Todd
Happy to offer what I know about Butterfingers issue of premiums ACC desinnation R310. So the issue is was Butterfinger / Curtiss Candy the only company to issue R310's.
The overprints offer clear proof that Butterfinger offered the premiums designated R310 with their candy bar.
17 Differant overprints exist with certin St louis players having a greater known population than most. This would indicate that the printer created a sheet or a couple of sheets Generally these things are done in even numbers so 6 or 8 maybe. Printed the photos on heavier cardboard stock then overprinted the Butterfinger ad. With some sheets either being printed in greater quanity or certin players being on multiple sheets. No need to print every card in the set. Seems like a needless expense. 1939 playballs had an overprint on the back of all the cards in the 1st series. But the sheets already existed. No Extra work involved. You make a point of the fact that no V94's have been found with an overprint. But we know that they were sold with gum not candy bars so makes sense marketing would differ.
As for Why Ruth in set despite Bad blood between Ruth and Curtiss candy. Simple whoever licensed the set of Baseball players had authority to included Ruth. And That is very different than going to Ruth or Christy Walsh and obtaining a license for Ruth to endorse the product and the premium.
You bring up V94's a similar set licensed by OPC in canada. The Only Foxx in V94 is the corrected version so makes sense issued slightly later than R310. And NO RUTH.. did Ruth and or Walsh reach out and order Ruth and Gehrig pulled? No proof of that ...but there aint no Ruth and there ain't no Gehrig.
Yes 2 sets licensed in 2 countries by 2 companies.
I cannot say for certin that Curtiss was the only company to issue R310's but they were Nationally distributed by them a really big company with a sharp legal team. And no information has popped up in the last 87 years to show any other company issued R310's. And while I cannot say for certin that v94's were only issued by OPC,those same 87 years passed and no other proof has surfaced....well you get what I am saying.
This began for me when I asked if the General gum sign is real then where is the card set described on the ad? Why is there no General gum baseball set when the General gum Funnies set was cataloged long ago?
The reply I got from T and T was that R310 was the set...But I just dont see any proof behind that statement. All the facts Known point to them being issued in The USA by Curtiss candy and Butterfingers. For another large candy Manufacturer in Chicago same city as Curtis to compete on the small candy counters accross the country with the same set of premiums? Just make no sense to me why General gum would do that. And that there is no record of Curtiss suing General gum or anyone else over this issue. I believe R310's were licensed and issued by Curtiss alone. But I am certainly open to any proof that I am mistaken.

[oldeboo]

For those following along with the facts, Saint Louis(Cardinals) won the World Series in 7 games against Detroit in 1934. Game 7 was on October 9th, 1934. That could explain the high number of Saint Louis(Cardinals) players.

[bigfanNY]

T/T
Please explain the significance that leeds you to the conclusion that the Fact that the Overprinted Subjects in The US Butterfinger set do not appear in the Canadian set proves in any way that R310's were issued by any other company but Butterfinger in the US? The 17 subjects do apper in the US R310 Set.
Yes there are alot of Cardinals But I doubt the 1934 WS had an impact on that unless the set was issued in 1935
You asked me to reply to why there was a Ruth in the set despite bad blood between Curtis and Ruth over Baby Ruth Licensing ( that one of you has known about for 35 years the other doubts). The fact is Licensing seems to be the answer (not 100% but not wild uninformed opinion). As it is to many questions about who is in and who is out of a number of sets from the era. Why no Gehrig in Diamond stars or 39 playball ? Why no Ruth in 34 Goudey or Delong? Clearly anyone who was going to issue a set of cards in that era wanted to include Ruth and Gehrig but not everyone did because of Licensing.
I also pointed out that the V94 having only the corrected version of Foxx points to it being issued or printed later. And the fact that Ruth is not included indicates to me that Licensing prevented it.
I have been cracking the books and one entry in the Sterling Catalog (1977) referanced Baby Ruth Gum as having issued R310 photos. It lists Baby Ruth Gum as Sterling catalog or SC (SCR300) and Butterfinger as(SC R315) on page 27. Both products belonging to Curtiss. If anyone can shed some light on that entry it would be appreciated. There was a product called Baby Ruth gum issued by Curtiss.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Baby-Ruth-R....m46890.l49286

I understand that R310 and V94 are two seperate issues issued in seperate countries under seperate licene and those are facts.
Also a fact that marketing materials very seldom included every subject in a card set. THE FACT that many of the 17 are more prevalant indicates they were either on more ad sheets or certin ad sheets were printed in greater quanity. ( Topps Short prints are a clear example) but a great number of population imbalances in card sets have been answered when printing recods were discovered.
Your argument boils down to unless there is an overprint to prove that Curtiss / Butterfinger issued a subject then there is a possibility that someone else issued the other 47 subjects... ok logic says there is that possibility but still no proof to back it up. As I said before a great number of issues from the era are not identified Wide pens Fine pens R309 R310 R311 R312. Yes 87 years of hobby research and knowledge can be proved wrong but prove it. Too much hard work went into The ACC and Sports Collectors Bible and Beckett/ Eckes catalog SCD catalog to just take pot shots at their research. With nothing more than as Trey says " I wonder why that would be"