ann

Don't know -- but I wouldn't mind having that double twist razor core orb. If I had an orb collection.

Anything that big (three inches???) ain't no marble. It's an orb. Or a sphere, or something . . . But that's just me, who won't buy anything over 1 1/8, 'cause anything bigger just ain't a . . .

Like those wig-wag early Pelts?

Agree. More, please.

Whoa -- totally new one on me! Thanks for the info and the heads-up. Know anything else about them? Is this the only type?

Portugal?? Could someone post pics of a few?

I can easily agree to all that!

So painful.

I heard it was his sister, Betsy.

I suspect (but don't know for sure) that it's a collector's name, albeit probably an early one. Don't think Akro called any of their mibs corkscrews. Or snakes. Have to check the 1st ed. of Castle/Peterson's machine-made mib book -- anyone remember the term being used before then?

And your horizontals? That I envy terribly?

Thanks, Steph --

Not blowing my own horn. Hardly ever do. Just poking back with a stick approximately the same length, girth, and pointyness as the one you use. You stop it, I'll stop it. Sigh. I didn't say where I heard info about the book because I had been asked not to. For the hundredth time. And I do believe I've already said, myself, in a previous thread, that because of the reaction I got to "hey I heard there's a new book out with timeline info and maybe glass formulae" -- that I certainly will NOT post on this board any new information I get about anything. Although I will share it on an individual basis with civilized people. I don't think that's hypocritical. I think that's rational.

There are a lot of things that I would do, and have done, that you can't imagine, Hansel. And at least I HAVE had things published. Things I've actually written -- you know, not just pictures of stuff I own.

If you offered them to me Migbar, I would delightedly accept. But I don't know how you made such an offer, since I haven't received one -- maybe my PM thingy isn't working? Or I have to do something new, to get to it, with the new format on the board? I'm old, I'm cranky most of the time.

THANK YOU, Galen. Wish it had a date.

Hey Hansel -- I'm sorry the irony of what I was doing was lost on you. And, undoubtedly, others..

Certainly there are errors and unsupported assumptions in the book -- at least one of them directly related to the fact that key Peltier information about Arnold Fiedler and god-knows-what-else is available only to a select few who have been sworn to secrecy. To attack someone's work when that attack is based on so-called but unsupported, unpublished "documentation" that is being deliberately withheld from all but members of a certain group -- is -- well, it's a lot of things, but cheap is one of them. To quote Steph . . . "When there is secrecy warning flags go up." You betcha. Cuts both ways, folks. And "belief" has nothing to do with anything. I believe very little. I have seen no proof of some things presented in the new Fiedler book, just as I have seen no proof of many things stated in this thread. I am pursing those lines of inquiry privately. The Helmers batch book was a revelation. Yes, I would recommend the book, for all of the reasons Steph gave in post #41 above. There's been lots of talk in the past about people "doing research on Arnold Fiedler," but nothing has been produced. I applaud the author for, as Alan Basinet has said (in an Amazon review) "having the intestinal fortitude to tackle a controversial subject," when no one else has. It's a start. Which is more than anyone else has done. And it has lovely pictures of some hand-gathered marbles. Publish the damn material.

Trying to picture you in a tight tutu . . .

That's exactly the kind of hoohah I'm talking about. To quote others from other threads, this ain't exactly USA nuclear secrets. And I got fed up a few years ago by the "I'm writing the book" line. I wouldn't give odds on that happening. However, a book doesn't HAVE to be written right now. The greatest (and most valuable) contribution anyone could make towards Peltier knowledge would be (1) the organization of this "safe" material into categories, and (2) the publication of a fascimile of every single page of it -- like was recently done with Helmers' batch book -- and let the discussion, and the book-writing, begin. As for the exerpt above -- what relevance does it have to anything we've been discussing? I don't see a name, a date, or anything that would indicate it had anything to do with any particular marble company, much less a particular employee and when he worked there. As far as Migbar not needing anyone to vouch for his word, I don't doubt many of you who know him personally feel the same way. The few exchanges I've had with him over time, on the boards and through a few pms, lead me to say that I like Migbar too, although we've never actually met. For one thing he has a great sense of humor, which is rare as hen's teeth these days. And I like his marbles. He's graciously sent me some in the past, along with a few now-treasured Pelts. But I don't take anybody's word when it comes to primary research material. I've spent many years of my life chasing it down, and finding out, in some cases, how badly it's been used/interpreted. I'm a cranky art historian, remember? Sorry. Gotta see it myself. Publish the damn stuff. Love the snake oil box.

Yep. And I'd like to see it. No offense, Migbar, but with all that type of info (from the infamous safe) being held so secretly for so long, I can't just take it on faith that you (or Galen) are not -- well -- trying to sell me some snake oil. You can say whatever you like. Show me the documents, and I'll accept what they say gracefully.

Yep, consulting was not new then. Henry Helmers, a glass chemist who worked for a number of companies, consulted with other ones -- including, apparently, Alley Agate and Christensen. According to the new book on Helmers and his batch book. Looking forward to answers to the paycheck questions --

I know that king!!

Oh, you know me. Only for 1927? Or are there others? If so when, what years? Are there enough so that you can tell if they are regular (weekly, bi-weekly) paychecks or the occasional "consulting fee"?