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

[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.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by 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.

I can almost promise you that all the items from that site with fluoresce brightly, including the coffee cups.

The item obviously is original and authentic. I don't believe there is any reason for debate anymore.

Even the "refuting" evidence posted supports it being authentic.

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by 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.

Paul I have always acknowledged that there is a small possibility that this is real. I did not ask you to get a blacklight test I commented once that a blacklight and a loupe are both handy when looking at items and you not having them caused you to back off those tests.
At some poit soon a major Auction house will probably offer their opinion or an expert will get it in their hands and we will get an answer. Until then I will remain unconvinced.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

Paul I have always acknowledged that there is a small possibility that this is real. I did not ask you to get a blacklight test I commented once that a blacklight and a loupe are both handy when looking at items and you not having them caused you to back off those tests.
At some poit soon a major Auction house will probably offer their opinion or an expert will get it in their hands and we will get an answer. Until then I will remain unconvinced.

And expert (DRCY) has already seen high res scans and given his opinion.

Just from the relatively lower res closeups here I can guess at what he saw that made him believe it's actually old.

I believe that with the same scans I'd reach the same conclusion.
From the closeups here, I can only say that I believe it was made using one of the types of typography, either from a carved print block (very much like actual typography) Or from an electrotype plate, a shallower etched form of typography plate.
The details of which one would be readily seen on a high res scan.

No credible evidence has been presented to make us believe it is not authentic. The evidence shown so far points to authentic. Does it really matter and why do people always have to argue and be right? Remain unconvinced. You stated your viewpoint a few times and I think everyone understands it. Restating your opinion will not change the evidence presented thus far. To each his own. Let's move on.

[irishdenny]

Originally Posted by steve B

And expert (DRCY) has already seen high res scans and given his opinion.

Just from the relatively lower res closeups here I can guess at what he saw that made him believe it's actually old.

I believe that with the same scans I'd reach the same conclusion.
From the closeups here, I can only say that I believe it was made using one of the types of typography, either from a carved print block (very much like actual typography) Or from an electrotype plate, a shallower etched form of typography plate.
The details of which one would be readily seen on a high res scan.

Dankz Steve,

I've been waiting to hear from You...
Your Printing Knowledge has always Enlightened me! (:

Over the years I've Explored David's
Photography educational & teachings through his website.

*Very Cool site David!!!

In the submarine Navy I was my Boats Photographer for some 6 years.
Our Type 18 Periscope was equipped with a 70mm capable of doing Panoramic shots... OMAHA was Designed to transform the pantry into a Dark room Underway... Developed many Cold war items during my time aboard ~

This is an Awesome Piece...
Finding out about it's past is what makes it even Bettar!

And Dankz for the Education Fellars... Truly!!!

[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.