Butterfinger and related sets of "cards"

[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.

[oldeboo]

Additionally, one of the Curtiss owned production facilities looks to have been darn near connected to a Chicago Tribune facility. That alone doesn't prove anything, but again, it's interesting that the R310s were printed on thin paper and have images similar to what you would see in a newspaper. There could be some connection there, of course that would be hard to prove. It's interesting to think about though.

[Leon]

Nice discussion...
trimmed and framed

[nolemmings]

I was informed by a collector that General Gum Inc. issued a set of non-sport cards known in the hobby as "Trick Cards" that were also issued by O-Pee-Chee in the same era. They carry a R155 catalog designation, and the OPC are listed as V305. These have been dated to 1930 and circa 1933, depending on source. So the two companies had the same product released at least one other time.

The cards were issued with "Mystery Gum" here in the U.S. Here's what the cards looked like:

https://auctions.vintagenonsports.co..._-LOT3507.aspx

I could not see a street address on the wrapper--probably was none-- but a mailing envelope shows a different address from a little further north in Chicago, on Diversey Parkway. I do not see a connection with this address and Curtiss Candy, but I haven't yet looked for one.