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

[drcy]

Then it is original.

[Shoeless Moe]

Wow! Thank you David. I really appreciate and value your knowledge and opinion. I think the next step is getting that black light, so it can pass or fail one last test you, Chad, Trey, Jonathan and others have mentioned. Then possibly off for restoration.

Bryan(Jobu) referred me to this place:

https://www.graphicconservation.com/contact/

If not too crazy expensive.

[RCMcKenzie]

Looking forward to Anson's blog post on this one. He could say something like..."A piece of Babe Ruth, card-related memorabilia, which has been casually recognized by Soccer Mom's across the globe for years through Hobby Lobby and Michael's has been newly discovered by the baseball card hobby by veteran collector, Shoeless Moe..."

[jcmtiger]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Wow! Thank you David. I really appreciate and value your knowledge and opinion. I think the next step is getting that black light, so it can pass or fail one last test you, Chad, Trey, Jonathan and others have mentioned. Then possibly off for restoration.

Bryan(Jobu) referred me to this place:

https://www.graphicconservation.com/contact/

If not too crazy expensive.

Looked at the website, just send the pics & your info, sound like they will give you an estimate

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by drcy

Then it is original.

It is an original what? Nothing against Drcy and his knowledge .....but ..General gum of Chicago issued a set of Funnies in 1934. And it is well documented as many hobby "Godfathers" were active collecting at the time. I am not aware of a series of 8x10 pictures of Baseball stars being issued by "Baseball gum" or a Mounted Babe Ruth picture attributed to them.
The Hobby is aware of small obscure issues like Sawyers Biscuits from Chicago. But the ACC missed Baseball gum from Chicago?
Now it could have been created in marketing and never made it to the storefront. But 2 sticks for a penny? Late in the depression when a stick of gum was the size of todays candy bar.
Time will tell but the image itself I guarantee will be seen in antique fairs and flea markets across the country. I will not be buying one. List this on the Memorabilia side and maybe more info will turn up.
Jmho..

[nolemmings]

Interesting thread. I am very curious about the 8x10 pictures and whether they are the same used by Butterfinger. I thought the same as Brian when I first saw the ad-- the pricing point seemed way off when compared to the candy bar. The other thing that troubles me somewhat is how the gum was packaged. I disagree that the gum itself had to be as large as today's candy bars. I still have a 1933 Uncle Jacks pack, coupon and gum, and the gum itself is no different than a typical stick of chewing gum-- you can also find Wrigley's and other gum wrappers from the '30's on the Internet that show very much like they have in recent times.

So here's my issue. The Uncle Jacks, with its cheap, non-advertising glassine wrapper, still had stiffeners to protect the gum--a baseball card and a coupon. Assuming this "Baseball gum" was not sold as loose sticks, how was it wrapped and wouldn't there naturally be some sort of indicator of the manufacturer? A coupon, or printing on the wrapper, or something else? The Ruth offer talks of wrappers, but nothing has surfaced as I understand it.

I believe the 1934 Canadian Butterfingers were obtained as premiums from O-Pee-Chee, so a gum company affiliation here would not be all that surprising. Does anyone know how those were acquired? I know they are considered premiums, but that tells me some gum packaging had to exist that alerted the customer how to get them. Are there known O-pee-chee coupons or wrappers from 1934?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

It is an original what? Nothing against Drcy and his knowledge .....but ..General gum of Chicago issued a set of Funnies in 1934. And it is well documented as many hobby "Godfathers" were active collecting at the time. I am not aware of a series of 8x10 pictures of Baseball stars being issued by "Baseball gum" or a Mounted Babe Ruth picture attributed to them.
The Hobby is aware of small obscure issues like Sawyers Biscuits from Chicago. But the ACC missed Baseball gum from Chicago?
Now it could have been created in marketing and never made it to the storefront. But 2 sticks for a penny? Late in the depression when a stick of gum was the size of todays candy bar.
Time will tell but the image itself I guarantee will be seen in antique fairs and flea markets across the country. I will not be buying one. List this on the Memorabilia side and maybe more info will turn up.
Jmho..

Plus I've seen repro Goudey advertising pieces printed modern and mounted to old cardboard stock. They are pretty convincing if you just look at, and smell, the old cardboard stand which has legitimate age. I'm not saying it's fake. I don't know enough and would never pass judgement without holding it, but I don't think smell is enough to be conclusive.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Plus I've seen repro Goudey advertising pieces printed modern and mounted to old cardboard stock. They are pretty convincing if you just look at, and smell, the old cardboard stand which has legitimate age. I'm not saying it's fake. I don't know enough and would never pass judgement without holding it, but I don't think smell is enough to be conclusive.

Scott, you need to read each post in the thread, no one said smell alone is enough to be conclusive.

[bigfanNY]

Paul. My understading is that R310's were issued in boxes of 50. They are the thin fragile 8x10 prints. The cardboard stock with red printing versions were ment to be displayed showing that along with your Buttetfinger you got whichever print was on top of the pile of 50.
Most of the cardboard stock versions that I have come across were St. Louis players. Players from other teams have been confirmed a number in the past 10 years. Over the past 40 so years when I have purchased original collections from the 1930's a number have had a few Butterfingers and at least twice I have had heard stories of how they were sold with Butterfingers directly from collectors. And at one point My Dad and I were very close to a complete set of R310's and had according to my old checklist 4 overprints.
But as I mentioned earlier there was extreme bad blood between Curtis candy and Babe Ruth so I cannot see them obtaining a license to offer a Ruth Premium.
As for your poster I downloaded this from the web site of the folks that offer these as fantasy items. If you enlarge you can see the same tabs as on your poster. Much easier to see on their site under stationary.
Hope this helps.

J

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

As for your poster I downloaded this from the web site of the folks that offer these as fantasy items. If you enlarge you can see the same tabs as on your poster. Much easier to see on their site under stationary.
Hope this helps.

J

Thanks for the Butterfinger info......good info.......but, as for that Site with these product, if anything it being on that Site adds to that is once was a real item.

As Trey pointed out all those baseball items on that Site that become coffee mugs, pillow cases etc are taking from what once were Real items:


Ruth Baseball Game
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...tion-road.html
https://loveofthegameauctions.com/lot-10015.aspx

Ruth Award Certificate
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...tion-road.html
https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c.../50023-50135.s

Ruth Membership Card
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...tion-road.html
https://robertedwardauctions.com/auc...ling-envelope/

Ruth Old Gold
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...tion-road.html
https://goldinauctions.com/magnifice...v-lot9948.aspx

I have a few emails out to Conservators, about restoring, I would think they would know if old or modern. I also have a black light on the way in the mail.

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

But as I mentioned earlier there was extreme bad blood between Curtis candy and Babe Ruth so I cannot see them obtaining a license to offer a Ruth Premium.

Through your years of seeing this set, have you ever seen an R310 Ruth with the Butterfinger overprint? Do you find it strange that Ruth would be included with the standard set if the blood was so bad? Are you thinking the Ruth photo from the standard set came from somewhere besides Butterfinger? Curious about your thoughts, as you are someone that has dealt with R310 a good bit.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

But as I mentioned earlier there was extreme bad blood between Curtis candy and Babe Ruth so I cannot see them obtaining a license to offer a Ruth Premium.

and for such bad blood Curtiss sure liked to live on the edge....

[Shoeless Moe]

AWFUL NEWS FOLKS - and I hate to be the barer of bad news, but the '52 Mantle never existed:

https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...product=poster

https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...uct=coffee-mug

https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...oduct=yoga-mat

You all can throw them away or actually send them to me, I'll get rid of them for you.


Right Jonathan?

[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.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Scott, you need to read each post in the thread, no one said smell alone is enough to be conclusive.

It seemed to be a final arbiter though. Like smell was the linchpin in the case for authenticity, and, in a case like I mentioned, smell is irrelevant.

[drcy]

Paul emailed me a bunch of closeup images, some that I don't believe that were posted here.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

It is an original what? Nothing against Drcy and his knowledge .....but ..General gum of Chicago issued a set of Funnies in 1934. And it is well documented as many hobby "Godfathers" were active collecting at the time. I am not aware of a series of 8x10 pictures of Baseball stars being issued by "Baseball gum" or a Mounted Babe Ruth picture attributed to them.
The Hobby is aware of small obscure issues like Sawyers Biscuits from Chicago. But the ACC missed Baseball gum from Chicago?
Now it could have been created in marketing and never made it to the storefront. But 2 sticks for a penny? Late in the depression when a stick of gum was the size of todays candy bar.
Time will tell but the image itself I guarantee will be seen in antique fairs and flea markets across the country. I will not be buying one. List this on the Memorabilia side and maybe more info will turn up.
Jmho..

Jonathan, I'm not familiar with the Butterfinger premium from 1934 at all. So I'm learning here as we go. Do you or anyone know why there were photos with that Butterfinger info printed on it and others without it? Is it known for certain those are all from the same Butterfinger offer, or could that be 2 different offers? edited to add reading one auction house's reason is the Red ones were believed to be the Diplay Pieces for the Offer and the photos without the red ink were then the Premium....makes sense.


Last, "if" this here piece is authentic I lean more toward the Promo that never materialized theory on this. I believe Trey had a few theories early on in this thread. And your disbelief in "2 sticks for a penny" leads credence to a possible cancellation of the Promo. Or maybe they couldn't get Ruth on board with the Gum/Offer so it was scrapped.