Babe Ruth General Gum Sign/Display

[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.

[oldeboo]

There is no proof that R310 was distributed exclusively by any specific product, it's not that hard to understand. That Butterfinger overprint is no different than the General Gum store display.

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by oldeboo

There is no proof that R310 was tied to any specific product, it's not that hard to understand. That Butterfinger overprint is no different than the General Gum store display.

Well the obvious difference is an image of an R310 is shown as free with the purchase of Butterfinger. The General gum sign has NO picture of the cards that were offered. Get it...picture of R310 with words that say free with purchase of a Butterfinger. I think that is proof they were tied together.

[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'.

[oldeboo]

Testing out my my Saturday evening comedy skit...

There is no way T206 cards are real because there was no way to get licensing agreements for all of those images for so many different brands. Not possible, T206 are obviously fake. No company would want to have their brands compete for sales. Makes no sense. Even if you showed me a physical copy of a licensing agreement I still would think T206 cards are fake. I would just make something else up.

It makes no sense for a fast food company to sell a kid's meal with an option for a hamburger or chicken nuggets. Why would any business offer competing products? Imagine if on top of offering a variety of products they decided to offer the same toy with either a hamburger or chicken nuggets. That would be so foolish! Not possible!

I'm trying here, folks.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by oldeboo

It makes no sense for a fast food company to sell a kid's meal with an option for a hamburger or chicken nuggets. Why would any business offer competing products? Imagine if on top of offering a variety of products they decided to offer the same toy with either a hamburger or chicken nuggets. That would be so foolish! Not possible!

Link: Coca Cola brands

Mars Candy's brands