migbar

Sami, Are you talking about the early mult-color swirls with the nice yin-yan twist/reverse twist pattern ? If so, that is a completely different can of worms, and I don't know how those were made, but I think they were made with a different method than the 1928 patent that Paula mentioned on page one of this thread. The patents were written in heavy legalese jargon, and in the case of the 1928 patent, I can't say with certainty which type marbles would be produced. Some patents are much easier to understand, such as the NLR patent. Years ago, before I had access to all the documentation, I thought there was only one Miller machine, for making marbles in the 7/8" to 1" range, but I now know that they had at least 7 Miller machines by 1928, of different sizes, so I guess all of the marbles they made up to 1928 could be called Millers, if you like. Speaking of cans of worms and the 1928 patent, I might as well say what I really think could have been made by that method. Arnold Feidler worked at Peltier from late 1924 until late 1927. I suspect that the 1928 patent was developed and experimented with in 1927, and when Arnold left Peltier to work for Christensen Agate, I think they may have used a variation of this patent to make the Christensen flames and such. Strictly conjecture, of course. mike (I'm doing the best I can here, with my little brains, but again, I'm no expert. I wish some of the real experts would/could weigh in, like Hansel, Smitty, Craig, Peewee, Raymond, Chris, and even Galen, etc....) Here's some fun pelts

Rollers is rollers, and there is no way to tell which machine made a particular marble. From the beginning, Peltier made most of their marbles in all sizes from 9/16" to 1", and by consequence 1/2", and all I can say is that a 3/4" marble was most likely made on the 3/4" marble machine. It is possible the marble you mentioned without white happened while making slags, before the white reached the feeder. I suspect, however, that what you see might be the tiniest hairline of a white thread, with not enough volume to show as white.

There were different versions of Miller machines, but they all had rollers for making the glass gobs round, and that is all. Peltier bought the machines from the Miller Company, but Miller was not an employee of Peltier. What was responsible for the patterns was the feeder set up. These were built up out of kiln brick and various ceramic parts, they were not machines, and these various feeder methods were designed by Sellers Peltier, not Miller. The feeders' components would wear out and disintegrate with use, and have to be rebuilt. Ann, some of the slags in my previous photo may be hand gathered types, and they were dug near the factory. mike

Hi Rick, nice to see you! Thanks Ann and Rick, respect and tolerance are vital to a healthy debate. mike

Hi Sami, I don't think anybody said that the "Millers" and the feathered slags were constucted the same. Most of the thinking, reasonable people here contend that the feathered slags were made as per the 1928 patent, and that is what I disagree with, right or wrong. mike

The Miller machines were the grooved rollers that made the gob of glass round, they didn't influence the pattern appreciably. The 1928 patent was one of many ways of bringing the different colors of glass together that was responsible for the resulting pattern. mike

Hi Edna, As for the Miller machines, the documents show that Peltier bought four of them in 1924/25, and that they bought four more by 1927, that were a different model than the first four. One of these was returned for some reason. By 1931 they had 13 marble machines, some of which may have been further modified Miller machines. I believe it was the more wild of the "Miller" patterned marbles that were made with the 1928 patent set-up, not the feathered slags. mike

I respectfully disagree with all my heart, and if I'm the only one, I'm fine with that. I still say "couldn't neither." A possible miller machine still does exist, and it has nothing to do with making feathered slags, either. mike

I don't know nothing, but don't count Boyce out yet. He still has the dream.

Peltier is still open, last I heard, and making glass tile for Crossville (?) Tile Company. At the end of 2002, Peltier went on strike, and Boyce was blamed for it, and his financial partners kicked him out. Boyce was the only one who cared about marbles and Peltier history, so that was the end for us.

At that time, Boyce was trying to find new markets for Peltier, and we had started making glass tile. He was working on making all of the colors compatible, so the tiles could be used in fused glass projects, and he also very much wanted to make multi-colored marbles. He had most of the colors worked out, but the yellow and red were still a little off. We had bins full of one inch square tiles, and one night, the batch man jumped the gun, and made the second run marbles, just as the first run marbles were made. Scoops of one inch tiles were scattered at the far end of the tank onto a bed of molten clear glass, white, green, blue, red, and then yellow. The tiles melted on the surface and stretched out into long, thin lines, and at the discharge end, they sank down through the clear, and came out a one-hole funnel, to be cut into gobs, and fed to the rollers.

Here is an early jobber box of the Second Run marbles, and a scan of one of the Investor Size boxes, thanks for looking, mike b.

This was my attempt mike

Thank you Paula ! The first of the last two patents is a beauty, but I doubt that it was ever made. The last one looks like a two station glass press for making small lenses, which is what the majority of their business was in the forties. Sellers was a real marble fanatic. I have seen colored pencil sketches of several feeder system ideas from 1929 and 1930, that were probably drawn by him. mike

These aren't all slags, the ones in the bottom row are opague, but I was in a hurry,

In the case of both of those patents, I'd be very surprised if they hadn't experimented with every possible variation of each for at least a year or more, by the time the patents were filed, at which time they were likely moving on to something new. mike

Using all opague glass, the surface pattern would be zig-zaggy, folded, loopy, or flamey, which is fine by me. The striating material in the 1928 patent was added only through the two side ports, and dumped in one spot for each port. This material would melt together and form only one ribbon from each port, I promise, and I doubt that it would fold into parallel lines. The base glass was added from further back, not the striating glass. I maintain that in order to get thin parallel lines as in the feathered slags, they would have to broadcast chunks of white from further back, and not simply dump it in one spot. Not much different than what Peltier did with the First and Second Run marbles awhile back.

As I remember, the marble inventory reports suggest that by 1928, Peltier was making less of the "onyx" marbles, and more of the "agate" types. The patent for making the NLR type marbles, using a funnel with usually six holes, and 3 channels from each side of the forehearth to the funnel, was filed February 6th, 1931. I don't know how long they were made. I don't know nothing 'bout tweeners. mike

The 1928 patent would not make feathered slags. The striping would be one irregular thick and thin line from the side port to the well, or two irregular lines if both side ports are used. It would not create the multitudinous parallel lines of the feathered slags. Neither am I convinced that the early multi-color swirls were made by this method, or even that they are single stream marbles. Despite the patent mentioning clear or transparent glass, I believe in actual practice, they used primarily opague glass with this patent, to make marbles such as zebras, tigers and wasps, ruby bees, cub scouts, spidermans, rebels, and even christmas trees, etc. The first Peltier slags were hand gathered, and then they made them in several different ways. I believe the feathered ones were later. (All strictly my conjecture, not to be taken as fact necessarily.) mike

My unpopular thought is that the set up described in that patent, or a variation of it, was used for the early wildly swirled "Millers". For the slags, white chunks of cullet would melt onto the surface of the tank of base glass, and spread out some as it stretches to the other end of the tank, becoming thin, flat threads, I'm thinking. I know nothing about their chatoyancy. thanks, mike

Nothing in the records describes the actual process used to make the feathery slags, but they are a single stream marble, and not really that mysterious. If they threw a scoop of white chunks of glass in the far end of a tank of colored transparent, the white would stretch out into long, thin threads as it flows toward the discharge end of the tank. When the hot viscous gob of glass is cut, it would elongate some as it drops to the chute which leads to the rollers, and would, upon hitting the chute, immediately roll into a ball, wrapping the white-threaded drip around. It would just happen, with different results depending on the temperature of the glass, the distance of the drop, and other variables. Daves marbles are also single stream, with a different set up, where he has three crucible tubes above the funnel at the discharge end of the tank. They don't have to do anything to get that nice folded pattern, it just happens due to the way it's set up. The super feathered slags made my Mike E.and other contemporary artists are a completely different process than the machine made marbles. mike

Hi Ann, I'm not a real expert, and I didn't ask Dave about it, but I suspect they just tossed a bunch of crunched up white into a tank of transparent colored glass, and that's what happened, slightly simplified. mike b.

.710" thanks Lou and Carole

Um...maybe .71" ? mike

Happy Birthday Bill ! Dig it. mike