ann

Thank you all. Now I don't feel quite so wierd, being a marble freak who also has a stash of yoyos (just a few, but nice old ones!), toy horses made before 1960, the whole series of Hartland western horsemen (large champs and small champs, except for the very very very rarest), some Hopalong Cassidy stuff, some shells, mineral specimens, some . . . Ann

This is a promising thread! I know very little about Vitros, and have only 2 (nice) parrots and 2 8-finger thingees. Let's hear it! Ann

Yes. OMG. I may have to rest awhile after looking at this one - - - If he still makes them I might be forced to break my "nothing bigger than 1-1/8" rule that has served me so well for years. Just this once. Unless of course you just send yours to me out of the goodness of your heart. If not, I forgive you.

Gee. Maybe next time I'll look at the dates of the posts! Thanx Ann

Woooow. Ann

Where? Where? I missed it - - - Ann

NO kidding! Got to get that camera. Alan, in your second photo there's a large-ish marble on the right, pinkish, or even irridescent pinkish? With stars? Who did it? Can I have it? Sorry, got carried away - - - I'll settle for who did it -- Ann

Thanks, Mike -- I thought that some in your photo looked like they could have been hand-gathered, and I was hoping you'd say they had been found at the site! Ann

I don't cosider that a hijack! Absolutely goes to # 2. Keep 'em coming. Anybody have anything for # 1? Thanks, Ann

OK, OK, a few last questions (famous last words). 1. Have any non-feathered (hand-gathered) Peltier slags ever been found in original Peltier packaging? Or excavated from the Peltier site? and 2. Have any of you (Paula? Anyone else?) run across a patent that could be connected, in any way -- however slight --to the "Miller" machine? Mike, do the old machines you've seen at Peltier have any observable features or old modifications that you think might distinguish them as the makers of those crazy swirls? Assuming that any modifications could also have been removed in the intervening years - - - Thanks, Ann

I think we all are! But that's what's great about a forum like this -- being able to pick the brains of people who are knowledgeable in areas we're curious about, but not necessarily knowledgeable in. And Mike, I couldn't agree with you more about the respect and tolerance thing. It's a big part of what keeps learning going, IMHO. Salut! Ann

Thank you, Mike! Ann

But if not aliens, then I have to agree, more-or-less, with Paula (Fight! Fight!) By more-or-less, I mean that I believe that the machine in question, if made, could have produced the feathered slags. Not DID. COULD HAVE. Unfortunately, we'll probably never know, since if it was made, it has certainly gone the way of its brother, the fabled Miller machine. That the intention was to produce what we call slags (and they called onyx or agate or whatever) is right there in the wording of the patent itself, if one reads it carefully, and without expecting to see the word "slag" or "onyx" or whathaveyou. I'll cite the relevant bits for producing the striations (not stripes): PAGE 1: lines 25-30; lines 38-40; lines 46-63; lines 78-82; PAGE 3: lines 72-95;lines 118-121lines 143-148; and here and there in other places. I think it's clear that the intended marbles are slags from several places, two of which are: PAGE 1, lines 57-63: ". . . so that the clear or transparent component of the mass may cohesively pile or weld together or unite, and hold the stria in a more or less tortuous intermixed, or interlaced form or condition, which might be expresed as being held in suspension in the clear mass," and PAGE 4, lines 58-63: "Figure 7 shows a marble produced by this present invention, which has a clear glass and transparent body of any desired color or even of clear glass, and in which is located, as in suspended form, the tortuous or folded form of the stria . . ." So there. Or aliens. One or the other. Ann

Aliens.

Jabo Ultra run June 4 - - - Ann

I don't really see anything. But then I'm old. What do you think is in the red? Thanks, Ann

At least it doesn't say "antique" or "vintage," but I doubt that would be a warning flag for some folks with more money than sense . . .

Yes, please. Please? Whine?

What a great list to have. I'd add James Cooprider (mentioned in an earlier post), but I'm not sure he makes marbles anymore. I haven't seen that much of his work, but what I've seen doesn't resemble the nice contemporary you're trying to ID. At the risk of starting another "He's in the hospital" thread (let's not! Although that turned into something hilarious), I usually keep an e-bay eye on Anton Bodor's work, although I've only managed to get one mib by him (most are too big for my self-imposed size restrictions -- gotta stop somewhere). But there's been nothing for several weeks. Anybody know anything? Just curious. I'd love to stumble over another small Bodor marble - - - Ann

It WOULD be interesting. I'll just throw out one last thought about the 1928 (or 1933) patent, and then leave the debate to my betters - - - Since a patent is a legal document, and is prepared by a lawyer, the language used is always necessarily precise. Because of that (among other things) it's probably significant that the terminology used is "striating" or "striated" rather than "striping" or a related term (like "ribbon"). Have loved this thread! Does anyone have Peltier slags that are for-sure Peltier, but not the feathered type? Have a great weekend everyone -- Ann

Gottcha. It's Friday. I'm particularly slow on Friday. Champion Agate wasn't even around then, was it?

Plus -- I'm not sure how much patent-date info can be counted on to help actually solve any of the dating issues. From what I've read, machines or improvements were generally in use before the patents were granted. I imagine there could be a several-year lag between the two. But dates like that can at least serve as "coat - tree" dates, to hang other time-period or stylistic information on, and around. Ann

Kool. But whatup with the Champion label? Just packaging mibs they bought from Peltier?

The only thing I'd contest is that the 1928 machine wouldn't produce the feathering effect. It's hard to explain or describe, but the "striating material" (note also that the word chosen is "striating," not "striping") introduced through either one or both side ports would not necessarily produce just one or two irregular lines if the striating material (let's just call it the "white") was cullet or batch glass broken or crushed into very small pieces, just like that used in the new video of one of the special marble runs at Jabo. That could easily form multiple small or thin lines right there. But the main point of the patent was to (1) lengthen the distance from the tank (if some white had already been introduced from the back) but especially from the ports, to the first "drop" towards the shears, in order to draw out or thin the white more than was customary, and (2) induce the thinned white to fold over itself multiple times (the two sets of slanted bushings, plus the slow-down or little "pile-up" just before the final drop), thereby forming the striations. The plunger doohickey at the top would allow even more variations. But I agree that it wouldn't necessarily make a lot of sense to go to all that trouble to get just a swirl, or even a "Miller" type swirl, when most or all of the colors would be opaque. There would be no point in striving for visual depth to that extent even if one of the colors used WAS transparent. But the addition of the ability to control the heighth of the two drops (the adjustable vertical extension blocks) and the thickness of the striating material COULD have produced them. I just doubt very seriously that the machine was developed and patented to produce swirls. It would only really make sense if it were developed to produce a distinctive slag. But hey. Who knows? Any machinists out there who'd like to give re-creating the thing a shot? Is the patent still in force, and still owned by Peltier? Sure wish I had more disposable income! Ann

Yep. But there are some really extreme examples of the "stacked-blinds-on-edge" feathering where the vanes/blinds are unbelievably thin and unbelievably close together. Keep an eye out for them! No, don't. I want them. They're remarkable.