Babe Ruth General Gum Sign/Display

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by drcy

I have no knowledge or insight on R310s, and barely even noticed the 8x10 photos mention on the ad. I just know that the Ruth ad is vintage and original.

There was various circumstantial and historical evidence surrounding the item, and that I considered, but I determined the ad is original largely on its own physical evidence. The microscopic images Trey sent me were the clincher, having specific microscopic details one would expect from 1930s printing.

The provenance is fairly decent, in that the original seller was a vintage ephemera and antiques seller who would have a feel for what is vintage, and there's no reason to doubt his claim that the ad came with vintage Yankees letters.

What exactly is the item and how it relates to baseball card history is up for debate by others, and not something I've particularly thought about. But the item is original and vintage.

Thanks for your excellent input on this. You leave absolutely no doubt about this item and that is really the whole point of this thread.

If someone hasn't looked at the circumstantial and historical evidence around this beyond the authenticity factor, there's nothing wrong with that at all. If someone has looked into it and they can't figure out that 1+1=2 that doesn't change the originality of this General Gum store display.

I'm not sure why someone would be so upset about this original General Gum store display existing that introduces new information to the hobby.

This was a really great find by the OP and it's good to see that it's now back in the hobby and known about.

[nolemmings]

"I have never seen a card set sold TWO STICKS OF GUM FOR A PENNY. That is my point"

1933 Uncle Jacks. Two sticks. And of course, the question is one of weight, not volume, as we do not know how large the pieces were. So no, nothing went over my head.


Maybe you can get together with all of your collector friends to discuss. Maybe now that the Internet is here you can show us one single Butterfinger advertisement or reference that has surfaced since 1934 that makes it "clear" that Butterfinger or even Curtiss was the sole distributor. Actually it would be helpful if you could show a single such advertisement for Butterfinger at all, beyond what are called the boxtoppers that were known from the beginning.
One. Would be nice. Anything.

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

"I have never seen a card set sold TWO STICKS OF GUM FOR A PENNY. That is my point"

1933 Uncle Jacks. Two sticks. And of course, the question is one of weight, not volume, as we do not know how large the pieces were. So no, nothing went over my head.

We should also not forget that an 8x10 image printed on cheap and flimsy paper is really not much of a "card" at all. R310s show no signs of being distributed inside any sort of packaging. For all we know, Baseball Gum could have just been a series of 8x10 baseball pictures sold with ANY two sticks of General Gum branded gum, or heck, maybe even Baby Ruth Gum. Maybe that's why the hobby forefathers mentioned Baby Ruth.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by oldeboo

Thanks for your excellent input on this. You leave absolutely no doubt about this item and that is really the whole point of this thread.

If someone hasn't looked at the circumstantial and historical evidence around this beyond the authenticity factor, there's nothing wrong with that at all. If someone has looked into it and they can't figure out that 1+1=2 that doesn't change the originality of this General Gum store display.

I'm not sure why someone would be so upset about this original General Gum store display existing that introduces new information to the hobby.

This was a really great find by the OP and it's good to see that it's now back in the hobby and known about.

+1. If this piece is genuine, then it is very hard to argue that General Gum did not at least contemplate if not distribute a series of baseball pictures. Maybe this was just a mock-up for a promotion or product that never got off the ground. Then again, maybe not-- the company identified in fact offered similar products (movie star premium large photos) the prior year, and was behind baseball "buttons" around the same time.

In any event, thanks David for the analysis.

[bigfanNY]

Uncle jacks like Goudey contained a piece of gum. That was approximately the size of the card. The picture you show the gum is cracked. Other uncle jack packs exist with uncracked gum. Also note the packaging dose not say comes with two sticks if gum.
Also if you look at authenticated Uncle jack packs the coupon is on the outside of the package. It seems the pack you posted is a fake...again I bow to your thorough research.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

Uncle jacks like Goudey contained a piece of gum. That was approximately the size of the card. The picture you show the gum is cracked. Other uncle jack packs exist with uncracked gum. Also note the packaging dose not say comes with two sticks if gum.
Also if you look at authenticated Uncle jack packs the coupon is on the outside of the package. It seems the pack you posted is a fake...again I bow to your thorough research.

Again you are wrong. I own the piece in the scan, and can assure you that there are two sticks. The point is obvious-- no one seriously would maintain that one piece of gum cracked so perfectly right down the middle. If you spent any time collecting or researching these, you would know that. Look at any decent auction site archives and you will see that the coupon and/or back of player card are often stained with an outline showing two pieces. Here's one on ebay now:


Edited to add: From the OC website: "The cards were distributed in a glassine (semi-transparent wax paper) wrapper along with two sticks of gum and a coupon." See https://oldcardboard.com//eNews/2014...eNews124.htm#2

[drcy]

I shy away from the term "forensic analysis" as bad autograph "authenticators'" at places like Coaches Corner have given "forensic" a bad connotation in the hobby.

My areas of expertise are ink-and-printing press prints and photographs. Especially with old photographs, I (and everyone else) will have no idea who is in the photo or where it came from. I determine that they are original (or fake or reprint) by examining the physical photograph itself . . . And no one is omniscient and sometimes I don't know.

So saying, "I don't know who this is and where the photo came from, but it is original" is not uncommon. For 90+% of tintypes, the identity and origin of the tintype has been lost in time.

So, not knowing everything or even lots, about a sign and being able to determine it's vintage and original is not at all incompatible.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by drcy

I shy away from the term "forensic analysis" as bad autograph "authenticators'" at places like Coaches Corner have given "forensic" a bad connotation in the hobby.
So, not knowing everything or even lots, about a sign and being able to determine it's vintage and original is not at all incompatible.

Not just not incompatible, but THE starting point for any reasonable discussion of authenticity. If it doesn't pass a forensics analysis, why go any further? I'm not sure why you would let charlatans like CC remove a perfectly good word from the lexicon. From Webster's: "3. forensics plural in form but singular or plural in construction: the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems especially : scientific analysis of physical evidence."

[perezfan]

It's not just Coach's Corner... All of the bogus/fraudulent authenticators of the 90s - 2000s used the term "Forensic". It was either in their title or was used to describe their shady/fake investigative practices.

J. Dimaggio, Frank Garo, Donald Frangipani, and a bunch of others tried to impress, and cojole the public into thinking they were legitimate and/or knew what they were doing. It got to the point where any company using the term "forensic" could immediately be dismissed as worthless (at a minimum) or bought-off (at a maximum).

Anyone who collected during this time knew it, and the "F" word has subsequently been tainted ever since the FBI's Operation Bullpen put all of those clowns out of business. It was so rampant that (to this day) you never see legitimate authenticators using "Forensic" in their titles. And of course today, all of those forensic documents and LOAs are deemed completely and laughably worthless.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by perezfan

It's not just Coach's Corner... All of the bogus/fraudulent authenticators of the 90s - 2000s used the term "Forensic". It was either in their title or was used to describe their shady/fake investigative practices.

J. Dimaggio, Frank Garo, Donald Frangipani, and a bunch of others tried to impress, and cojole the public into thinking they were legitimate and/or knew what they were doing. It got to the point where any company using the term "forensic" could immediately be dismissed as worthless (at a minimum) or bought-off (at a maximum).

Anyone who collected during this time knew it, and the "F" word has subsequently been tainted ever since the FBI's Operation Bullpen put all of those clowns out of business. It was so rampant that (to this day) you never see legitimate authenticators using "Forensic" in their titles. And of course today, all of those forensic documents and LOAs are deemed completely and laughably worthless.

I lived through that time, intimately involved in the hobby throughout, but never got the memo that the word "forensic" had been rendered inoperative. I set up at shows with Keating for 12 years, and don't remember us ever having that particular discussion. Kevin was adamant, though, that so-called letters of authenticity should actually be called letters of opinion, so maybe the term "authenticity" should be the one declared inoperative instead. "Legitimate authenticators" can use whatever terminology they want, but don't mind me if I continue to use the word I think describes a situation with the most precision. I will, however, take your caution into advisement should I ever become one myself, something about as likely as ever resolving with overwhelmingly certainty whether the General Gum piece is "good" or not.

[drcy]

Yes, I'm familiar with those forgers.

Really, forensic specifically relates to court cases and criminal and civil law. Thus, my posts on Net54 aren't forensics.

[Hankphenom]

Good God, how did we go down this boring rabbit hole? Quoting Webster again: "scientific analysis of physical evidence." That's what I was talking about, but just to put an end to this ridiculous part of the discussion, from now on I'll use words from your posts to make sure I don't get another lecture on how best to articulate my thoughts.

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

the company identified in fact offered similar products (movie star premium large photos) the prior year
In any event, thanks David for the analysis.

Yeah we should also ignore the fact that Baby Ruth Gum, a sister brand to Movie Gum, was involved in premiums with movie stars too. That certainly means nothing, right?

My hogwash research hasn't looked much into the non-sports stuff yet, admittedly.

I did see this Movie Gum(General Gum) premium shown over on the non-sports affiliate, and it was described as thin with nothing on the back, it has no branding on it. What's the Baby Ruth Gum premium look like?

Can anyone spot any similarities between the Movie Gum(General Gum) premium and an R310?

Border size(if centered)? Color? Aging? Paper? Printing? Ink? Facsimile signature? Branding?

Can anyone spot any similarities?

Is there even one indication that this General Gum movie issue looks similar to R310?