Babe Ruth General Gum Sign/Display

[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.

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

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.

Yes certainly they were somehow, no doubt about it. I'm not arguing that. Now we are on the same page. If it's too much of a leap to think that a Curtiss Candy company that produced gum and made an original store display that mentions 8x10 pictures during the same exact period as R310 is a great leap, so be it. It's also interesting that a lot of the surviving Butterfinger overprints seem to be in really nice condition with not many signs of being used in stores other than a little bit of corner wear. I haven't seen anything in print that screams from the roof that R310 was only distributed by one brand. In fact, I haven't seen anything from period sources on any front. I've seen some R310s that were put on thicker stock with a stamp on it and I've seen an original General Gum store display that mentions 8x10 pictures of baseball stars in 1934. An R310 image with a Butterfinger overprint doesn't prove by itself that Butterfinger distributed these exclusively or even at all, just like the General Gum display doesn't prove they were distributed in that form either. I don't think it's a one or the other situation.

What other 8x10 baseball pictures do you think Curtiss distributed with this General Gum display? Or do you think they never made the 8x10 pictures and intended to make a completely different set than R310 during the same time?

Can't we just sit back and say that there is a chance that General Gum, Butterfinger and possibly Baby Ruth distributed R310?

I don't think there will ever be anything that proves that any of the above didn't distribute R310s. Something could certainly pop up that proves that at least one them did. Again, my reference is to the actual R310 issue that was actually given away. There may be a valid reason why Curtiss chose to leave them anonymous. If it was an exclusive product why wouldn't they have put branding on them? That doesn't add up from a marketing perspective.

[bigfanNY]

To your first point weather it is an easy leap a moderate leap or as You say a Great leap, It is a leap that has no supporting documentation. So its not research its a guess. If at some point your continued research uncovers a shread of proof please post it.
Your second point is just sad. You say that the Butterfinger overprints are not proof that Butterfinger issued R310's exclusively ( A weak point with no proof but it could be possible) but you go on to say that the Butterfinger overprints do not offer proof that R310's were issued with Butterfingers. If that is what you believe everyone is entitled to an opinion.
But given that I purchased 2 seperate collections in 2 seperate states that contained toppers and R310's together. And both original collectors related rhat they did indeed buy butterfingers to get the R310's I belive that Yes Butterfinger candy bars had to be purchased in order to receive an R310 at multiple candy stores in the US. And I was not the first or the only collector to tie these together.
In any case the tie between Butterfinger candy bars and R310's is documented to my satisfaction. That you doubt it is as I said is just sad. Given the lack of any real proof to your hypothesis I wonder why you shout so long and hard.
Coming on Net54 with a 17 point hypothesis claiming that you have proof of the fact that R310's could have maybe been issued by someone other than Butterfinger. You had to expect that someone would ask you to actually provide some real proof of your claim. Well given that you dont believe R310's were ever issued with Butterfingers maybe you thought everyone should take you at your word. Since you did claim to have done exhaustive research.
Oh regarding your research if you read the ENTIRE write up from the Curtis candy Museum it took 15 years for Otto to pay off his creditors. 1934 was not a year of tremendous growth it was the depression. Part if real research is reading all of the story not just the parts that taken out of context allign with your unproven theory.

[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

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by drcy

Link: Coca Cola brands

Mars Candy's brands

No doubt about it. Much like Curtiss Candy had many subsidiaries and product offerings, one of which was General Gum, Inc.

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by drcy

Link: Coca Cola brands

Mars Candy's brands

Lol yes many large companies have many products. Not my point.

Curtiss Candy had the #1 candy bar in America the Baby Ruth. They spent Marketing dollars to encourage people to buy the newer Butterfinger. Not maybe, not well they might have, not why might that be. Real hard proof with a company name and card set clearly identified. The Ad dose not say free with any Curtiss Candy or General gum product. It says Free with Butterfinger so we know exactly the product Curtiss candy wanted consumers to purchase. And they advertised the marketing campaign. Where is the marketing and or ads from any other company that also issued R310's.