ann

Can't really tell from a photo, but if you're looking at the green, could what you're seeing be aventurine rather than pearlization? Vitro did one of those. Uncommon, though, I think. And what Steph said while I was typing.

The gob feeder and its relationship to the rollers . . . and the weather, among other things. As Galen said, the "Miller machine" was just the rollers, and they used at least one version of it while still making handgathered marbles. Apparently.

There you go. It's not important to me either. My criteria are (1) is it pretty?, (2) is it smaller than 1 1/8" in diameter?, (3) can I live without it? and (4) if not, can I afford it? That's about it. Well, OK. Sometimes I've bought things I couldn't really afford. Too bad.

And you think Vacor does?? And tries really really hard to avoid doing that? I think you'll have to accept that they don't. Or not. All the same to me.

Really?? Now there I beg to differ, pretty strongly.

Now that I can agree with.

Back when I was only using money orders, and therefore the US Mail, oldnurse was a she. But it sounds like a "they" now. And I agree that they're fair.

Hi Winnie -- I wasn't thinking of that kind of comparison -- just wondering why some things (like JABOs and Sammys) draw so much more ire than other types that could be accused of "mimicing" other types, like the European machine-mades. I can totally understand why a European marble company would try to create marbles that looked as good as (or almost as good as) Christensens. It's business, if nothing else. Personally, I collect the European machine-mades, when I can find them. It's not so easy over here. A couple of years ago, I wrangled some nice machine-made slags from a German guy who only collected large antique marbles. Since I don't collect large marbles, the machine-mades cost me 3 nice peewee onionskins with mica, and it was still one of the best deals I've ever done! I don't think I've heard anybody rag Vacor to death. Why not?

And I agree with him. Just for the record. As long as we are repeating ourselves here.

I agree. Just for the record.

Or German machine-made slags in the Christensen slag corner of the box . . .

I think so. They're nice flames. And I'd bet they are from that crazy pee wee run . . . if so, the size would have taken them out of the vintage category for most collectors, even if they had been misrepresented.

What Sami said. Exactly, except for the large/small categories. I don't do large (over 1 1/8). My subcats are glass and non-glass. And what Jeeperman said. I think in 10 or so years I've sold maybe 3 marbles, all at one show, in somebody's room. As I've improved certain aspects of my collection, I've given away probably several hundred to beginning collectors. Probably should have sold them, but I'm stupid that way. Once I retire, I'm going to roll around in my keepers, in my cardboard box under the bridge. Hopefully in or near Key West.

I wanna see pics of somebody hangin' outta the Jeep.

Not meant as a personal attack against you, or anyone else, Ron. You've done more than many -- if not most -- for the hobby, and certainly some things have been learned as a result of many digs. I'd like you to understand that I am simply speaking only for myself, as a long-time archaeologically-trained art historian; I can't help but see digging as vandalism, even if permission of the landowner has been sought and given -- so that attitude colors any and all I may have to say on the subject of digs. For me, the results of digs will always be subject to question, and not a good enough foundation upon which to build any theory. It's that simple, is all. And yes, those thoughts are fixed. And are likely to remain so. But that doesn't stop me from having an interest in any answers that might surface from Galen's last questions -- I'd like to hear them.

My thoughts run alongside yours on this one, Galen -- It would not surprise me to find out that some of the companies may have shared dumpsites, but I don't think they shared cullet (except when more than one company bought "basic" glass like Pond's cold cream jars, for example). And I cannot really imagine a scenario (although several have been presented here and elsewhere) where one company would purchase and then use marble rejects from another company to make their own marbles. It just isn't feasible. And although some companies bought colored glasses from Fenton and Cambridge Glass, they also made their own colors. Akro's colors were entirely self-generated. And although this may raise another controversial topic (sorry, but it really should at least be mentioned in any discussion of this topic), I can't give a lot of weight to the results of "digs," no matter who does them. Archaeological investigations yes. Digs, no. Sorry.

I'll check Hellmers' batch book.

I'm having a "those were the days" moment. My phone number as a child was 3-3506. I know there were two other numbers before the 3, but I didn't have to know them, 'cause I didn't have to dial them to call home . . . (I'm coming right now, the canoe sank, the roof of our camp fell in, I got chased onto a porch by a dog, there was a snake in the road . . .)

Oh, how weird. They look kinda Christmas-tree-ish, don't they. Oh hey, forget I even said that! I don't wanna go there. I see exactly what you mean by "I can't guess whether they were even meant to be swirls or if they started out as something else. Seems kinda odd how the red and green are split up on the smaller one. Don't know what that might signify though." They don't look anything like I halfway expected them to look -- although I would be hard-pressed now to tell you exactly what I expected. More CAC-ish, maybe? > head scratching< Gonna take some time to absorb these . . . .

I believe he was executed.

Kool! Are they really swirly, or not so much? Does one color predominate, or . . . ? Do they resemble anybody else's swirls? I guess Akro wasn't happy with them, since they don't seem to have been distributed. Maybe they didn't see the point as long as they had a marble (the corkscrew) that nobody else could reproduce . . . ?

Hi Don! If it's yours, it could not have a better home! 'cept mine, of course!

I think maybe Alley too . . . I can't say I've ever seen an Akro swirl outside of the -ades and the oxbloods. But I could easily be wrong. Anybody?

What he said.

Too bad. It would have been educational for all the folks you're so concerned about if you had stayed long enough to ID the marbles in the "mix of vintage and Sammy marbles" you posted.