Babe Ruth General Gum Sign/Display

[jerseygary]

One other thing that looks hinky on this piece is it appears that one of the tabs show creasing on the backside but not on the front. Can't say for sure without having it in my hand, but that's what the pictures appear to show to my eye.

[nolemmings]

Although I guess this could be a fantasy piece in the sense that this specific display was never used in 1934, I find it less and less believable that the product itself did not exist (Baseball Gum), and that the baseball pictures currently catalogued as R310s were not sold with that product. There is an undeniable tie between General Gum and Curtiss Candy–the addresses used for the plant and general offices/HQ both match up. It seems far-fetched to me that someone completely made up a display piece thinking it would be clever to make this connection in hopes that it would be discovered by savvy collectors down the road and falsely used to support claims of authenticity. I suppose it’s possible that Curtiss Candy initially thought to distribute the R310 pictures through its gum affiliate and that it generated prototype advertising that never hit the stores, opting instead to tie the pictures to its Butterfinger candy bars and only those candy bars. If so, I guess that could be construed as a “fantasy” piece in the same vein as phantom World Series tickets– actually from the period and real but never put into commerce.

Gary, while I appreciate your mock-ups and understand your point, these are not particularly persuasive to me. Your re-creation of how the display would appear, assuming it to be accurate, still shows the emphasized portion of the ad. All that seems “cut off” from my view is the second reference to the price of the gum at 1 cent, and the price is already shown prominently front and center, so there is no confusion there. The Ruth premium ad is fully visible. Some small amount of graphics is wasted I suppose, but you are assuming that the piece was only intended to be used as you constructed it. It easily could have been hung or displayed in other ways–there even appear to be staple holes in this example.

It is now known that “Baseball Gum” had some relationship to the distribution of these same pictures in Canada, through O-Pee-Chee. That was not learned until 1997--more than a half century after the fact. It was established by the discovery of one, flimsy, rather non-descript envelope wrapper, which made an offer very similar to the one present in this piece– gum and a picture for a penny. I say that to show that it doesn’t always take much to alter the hobby’s understanding of set origins, and people don’t necessarily bat an eye when information surfaces decades later. So the find of a possible display piece for R310 only this century is not that suspicious, to me anyway.

It is also known that there was a commonality or relationship between General Gum and OPC at the time, as they both issued the magic tricks non-sport set in the early 1930s. In addition, it is known that General Gum issued movie star cards with a mail-in offer for larger photos in 1933. The only thing I see missing is a direct correlation between Baseball Gum and the General Gum Inc., and that link is supplied by this display piece. Unless of course you believe that someone made it out of whole cloth (cardboard) with intent to deceive, and it’s just coincidence that all of these other facts align.

[Hankphenom]

What about the forensics? Have we concluded that this is period paper with period printing techniques? That's not dispositive, of course, but would take it a long way toward genuine in my mind.

[nolemmings]

I guess I’m getting tripped up on hobby lexicon, and what is meant by the term fantasy piece. I truly hope that the OP’s item is authentic, and I believe it so, although this is memorabilia and an area that I neither collect nor profess to know very well. If not authentic, though, I believe it more likely to be a reproduction or based upon something authentic than something contrived from thin air. What is the main view of those who oppose it being the real deal?

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I guess I’m getting tripped up on hobby lexicon, and what is meant by the term fantasy piece. I truly hope that the OP’s item is authentic, and I believe it so, although this is memorabilia and an area that I neither collect nor profess to know very well. If not authentic, though, I believe it more likely to be a reproduction or based upon something authentic than something contrived from thin air. What is the main view of those who oppose it being the real deal?

Among the many mysteries surrounding this piece has to do with your very question: if it is some kind of repro, even a composite, where are the vintage items the fabricator based it on? As noted, there are known vintage elements in the details of the piece, but how could it be that the fabricator is the only one to have come across an original containing the graphics used in the replication? And if it was made up out of whole cloth--a true fantasy piece--a lot of design talent went into its creation, and how could the time, effort, and risk of exposure possibly be worth what one of these would bring on eBay? Although waiting for answers to my questions regarding the forensic analyses, I'm still leaning toward the latter of the unlikely scenarios outlined above, thinking that perhaps the creator envisioned a lot more than it actually sold for, maybe by a factor of ten or twenty, and that a result along those lines would have made the effort eminently worthwhile.

[drcy]

As the debate continues, I ordered one of the fineartamerica prints to examine in person.

It should be a few days or so before I get it, but I will report back.

[drcy]

One thing to know is that we don't know what the finesportsamerica final items look like, and what we are seeing on their website isn't the final product.

Meaning, much of their images on the site are of real items (original old movie posters, etc), and they print on demand from those images. Thus, many of those items, including perhaps the Ruth ad, may never have been ordered or produced.

An example is, the following link pictures an actual original vintage movie poster, and, when ordered, they print on demand that image onto products: coffee cup, bag, print. The actual 'Pride of the Yankees' coffee cup, phone case or print likely doesn't exist. Is the Pride of the Yankees coffee cup you order original? Obviously not, and, beyond that it's on a coffee cup, will be easily identified as a reprint. Is the poster pictured on their site original? Yes.

Thus, the actual, finished products you order are not shown on the site. They have speculative images of what the Lou Gehrig poster or Gum ad imposed on a generic handbag or print or phone case would resemble, but that's it.

Lou Gehrig movie poster

And, as has already been demonstrated, the eBay ad did not come from this site or from the image they have, as they are graphically different.

But, as I said, I will get one and report.

I'd also be happy to then examine the eBay bought one.

[bigfanNY]

[QUOTE=nolemmings;2111926]Although I guess this could be a fantasy piece in the sense that this specific display was never used in 1934, I find it less and less believable that the product itself did not exist (Baseball Gum), and that the baseball pictures currently catalogued as R310s were not sold with that product. There is an undeniable tie between General Gum and Curtiss Candy–the addresses used for the plant and general offices/HQ both match up. It seems far-fetched to me that someone completely made up a display piece thinking it would be clever to make this connection in hopes that it would be discovered by savvy collectors down the road and falsely used to support claims of authenticity. I suppose it’s possible that Curtiss Candy initially thought to distribute the R310 pictures through its gum affiliate and that it generated prototype advertising that never hit the stores, opting instead to tie the pictures to its Butterfinger candy bars and only those candy bars. If so, I guess that could be construed as a “fantasy” piece in the same vein as phantom World Series tickets– actually from the period and real but never put


Some additional research shows that in 1931 Curtis candy faced Bankruptcy. They were allowed to continue but were forced to rein in their finances. Looking over Chicago phonebooks I only find General gum using same address as Curtiss after 1931. I can find no indication that General gum was ever a subsidiary of Curtiss candy. I am of course open to one being found but the Curtiss candy Museum has no reference.
Second if Curtiss wanted to issue R310's with Gum they would have used Baby Ruth Gum which they issued as far back as 1926. The ACC and some early giides such as Sterling list R310's as being issued by Curtiss candy and Baby Ruth Gum. But the Butterfinger cardboard displays are the only item that I know of discovered in the past 87 years directly tying a licence to R310's.
Just because you live on Pennsylvania ave in DC dose not make you president. It just makes you a neighbor General Gum clearly produced products in Chicago at Curtis factory. But I have not seen any evidence they were owned by Curtiss. So the fact that there is no set of cards tied to this sign along with the 2 sticks of gum make me doubt this sign... time will tell

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

But I have not seen any evidence they were owned by Curtiss.

What would you think if General Gum was a direct and known subsidiary of Curtiss Candy?

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by oldeboo

What would you think if General Gum was a direct and known subsidiary of Curtiss Candy?

If General gum were a subsidiary of Curtiss then all you would need is proof that they had a license to issue R310's to state with any certinly that they did. Something like the cardboard R310 Butterfinger box toppers.
But why would Curtiss compete against itself. Especially a key product like the Butterfinger bar? The sign says 2 sticks of gum for a penny plus a card. Sound like something a company trying to dig itself out of bankruptcy would do?

[oldeboo]

So R310 being an anonymous issue completely eliminates Baby Ruth as stated in early literature, correct?

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

If General gum were a subsidiary of Curtiss then all you would need is proof that they had a license to issue R310's to state with any certinly that they did. Something like the cardboard R310 Butterfinger box toppers.
But why would Curtiss compete against itself. Especially a key product like the Butterfinger bar? The sign says 2 sticks of gum for a penny plus a card. Sound like something a company trying to dig itself out of bankruptcy would do?

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by oldeboo

So R310 being an anonymous issue completely eliminates Baby Ruth as stated in early literature, correct?

R310 is not an anonymous issue. They were issued with Butterfinger candy bars. And there is proof of this. Just like there is proof that many cigarette manufacturers issued T206's based on the advertisements on the back. If you have some proof that R310's were issued with ANY other candy gum or clothing store etc. Please end the suspense and post it.
Because it seems to me that what you call research is just guesswork and conjecture. You started with the premise that R310's were issued with multiple products and proceeded to gather facts to convince yourself you were right. That is very..very different than researching who issued R310's. Because as I stated above the only product I have ever seen conclusively tied to R310's is Butterfinger Candy bars.
So if " your really trying here" try posting some proof. If it is so obvious that it was done proof should be easy to find.
Really the best one was that the Chicago tribune was on the same street so maybe they printed the R310's Rock solid research Trey all of the Baseball card collecting world should pay homage to your grand efforts. The culmination of course is the proof you will be supplying in your next post... no need to respond to my debunked theories just post the proof and shut me and my ignorant, stupid to lazy to do any real reasearch mouth up. Looking forward to it Trey.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

If General gum were a subsidiary of Curtiss then all you would need is proof that they had a license to issue R310's to state with any certinly that they did. Something like the cardboard R310 Butterfinger box toppers.
But why would Curtiss compete against itself. Especially a key product like the Butterfinger bar? The sign says 2 sticks of gum for a penny plus a card. Sound like something a company trying to dig itself out of bankruptcy would do?

As usual, most of what you say is inaccurate and borderline non-sensical.
Curtiss Candy had financial problems throughout 1929, for reasons that were hardly uncommon. Crashes in the commodities and stock markets kicked off the Great Depression–maybe you’ve heard of it.
However, as recounted by those that were there, the decision to forego bankruptcy was made in late 1929, and then: “Once Otto Schnering was given the stamp of approval by his creditors in 1929, he proved he was up to the task of paying off the company’s debts without slowing down its exponential growth. The Butterfinger bar, Curtiss’s second major candy bar smash, kept the factories firing on all cylinders even during the roughest years of the Depression.” See that? Exponential growth, not a company digging itself out of bankruptcy. If you care to read more:
https://www.madeinchicagomuseum.com/...tiss-candy-co/

And who knows what you’re trying to say by commenting on the pricing. Let’s see, who in the early 1930's would be so foolish to package a baseball picture and gum for a penny? The better question is what company did not use that pricing? Heck, it carried into Bowman and Topps decades later, so it was hardly a rash business model. In fact, it seems more likely that kids would splurge a nickel to get multiple sticks of gum they could chew all day and 5 baseball pictures than to pay the same price for a single candy bar gone in fifteen minutes and only one baseball picture.

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

And who knows what you’re trying to say by commenting on the pricing. Let’s see, who in the early 1930's would be so foolish to package a baseball picture and gum for a penny? The better question is what company did not use that pricing? Heck, it carried into Bowman and Topps decades later, so it was hardly a rash business model. In fact, it seems more likely that kids would splurge a nickel to get multiple sticks of gum they could chew all day and 5 baseball pictures than to pay the same price for a single candy bar gone in fifteen minutes and only one baseball picture.

It's just hilarious commentary without question and pretty fun to read. Every point has been completely debunked, then the next guess goes to something more ridiculous. There is proof that General Gum was a subsidiary of Curtiss Candy. Anyone want to guess the amount of gum you could get through Baby Ruth Gum for 1 cent in 1934? There is actual research that has gone into this, and that's completely ignoring the fact that the General Gum store display is the real deal, that can't be legitimately debated. If in some world you're still questioning the General Gum display you are without a doubt questioning the Butterfinger display as well. The Butterfingers have many significant questions around them, no doubt about it.

It's like looking for a penny at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, ain't happenin'.