Butterfinger and related sets of "cards"

[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"

[doug.goodman]

Here are mine :

[oldeboo]

Beautiful Doug, a nice lot there!

Thinking about it...who knows, maybe the ACC had it right. Perhaps R310 was primarily a Baby Ruth (Gum) issue first and foremost, and by association the R310 photos were distributed in some form by General Gum(Same address). At some point they may have taken the Baby Ruth/General Gum photos and put them on thicker stock and slopped on a Butterfinger overprint to hastily increase distribution at the end of the run. Butterfinger may have been just a mere afterthought.

[nolemmings]

"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."

What tripe.

Trey, thanks For screenshotting the 1960 ACC. I can only imagine the exhaustive research that went into that entry giving us such definitive info on R310. No mention of the year that R310 was issued or the number of subjects, but at least we know with a high degree of certainty that the pictures were issued with Baby Ruth. Case closed, but damn, I guess that makes the Butterfinger overprints all fantasy pieces or reprints of fantasy pieces.

Not that we need it now, but it will be nice when Jonathan posts the licensing agreement with Curtiss Candy so we can clear up a few loose ends. In the meantime, I will just hide in my shame for having ever questioned the 87 years of toil that was spent by the hobby forefathers on the R310 set, and the painstakingly thorough research they left for us on the subject.

[oldeboo]

Research indicates that The Chicago Tribune owned a ship that was built in 1930 and it was docked right outside the front door of Curtiss Candy/General Gum. At some point in time The Chicago Tribune used a newsprint source in Thorold, ON and possibly other locations along the Great Lakes as well. More dots would need to be connected to cement some dates, but there’s enough evidence to make this interesting.

Perhaps the printing and paper characteristics of R310 and V94 are similar to that of a newspaper?

Were either or both issues physically produced by The Chicago Tribune?

It's interesting if nothing else.