ann

There! An H cut is perfect for it! Thankyouthankyou And I just stumbled across a fun one on ebay . . .

I think the complete fold (the one seam "overwriting" another, as I mentioned earlier) applies to all of the machine-made marbles we think of and call "single-seam" -- some of the CAC slags, for example. In that context, and technically,I agree that only hand-gathered marbles can truly have a single seam. But I also think we have another duck here . . . walking and quacking and swimming and flying. What else are we to call the machine-made marbles that look like they have a single seam, but a single-seam marble? Without writing an explanatory paragraph or a footnote each time? I dunno. I'm going to keep calling them single-seamed until a better alternative presents itself, I guess. And like you said, Dave, every now and then you can catch that odd double-cut thingie -- I've seen it mostly on Pelts, two cut lines parallel to each other with something funny going on in between. There's a good photo example of it happening on an MK swirl in Gerald Witcher's article too. I need to take a closer look at my meager collection of CACs . . .

What she ^^^^ said. Never saw one with aventurine . . . I find opaque red & white ones fairly often -- I'd say a lot more than any other variety.

I guess I've come to agree about "cages" having a minimum number of lines. When I got my oldies out, I picked out 12 immediately that I considered "caged." 10 "candy stripe" solid cores and two double-ribbon cores. They all had 16-18 fine outer lines. As I was putting them back, I began thinking about the other marbles with outer ribbons that I hadn't thought of as caged. There were lots of them -- latticinio cores, divided cores, etc. None had more than 12 outer ribbons. Plus, color came into play with them. Al of my caged marbles had one-color cages. The ones with 12 or less outer ribbons sometimes alternated colors, or were thicker than caging threads . . . . So, Orbboy, that's a heck of a caged candy stripe you've got there. I haven't seen one with more!

Ron describes what I was talking about here very clearly when he talks about the orientation of the stream to the center of the orifice . . . I also think (just my opinion) that whether or not there were cutlines of any type on any particular type of marble was deliberate on the part of the makers. Maybe not initially, but they would quickly see the advantage of having a readily-identifiable :marker: on their marbles. Think how distinctive the Peltier and CAC slags were from Akro's, for example. And I can't help but believe it when considering that CAC did all of it, basically = they made both swirls and flames, and one- and two-seamed slags, the same for banded transparents, striped opaques, transparent swirls . . . all to make them more desirable to kids.

The person I got it from thought it was Alley, and I knew no better myself at the time. But after some questioning and consultation, I've moved it to my Champion box. Would be interested in the opinions of others . . . And I love the papier maches, too -- didn't even think about those!

I don't think I've heard a minimum number associated with "caged" before, but then I may not have been paying much attention. 12 sounds reasonable. Although I suppose there might be occasions when fewer would still give a caged look to whatever was inside . . .

For Christmas marbles?

Love these photos - - -

I got hung up on this type once, so I have a few. Never once did it occur to me to count the threads of the outer cage! But I will, this very evening. I will say, off the top of my head, comparing just my recollections of my "caged candy-stripe" marbles, yours looks really really really caged to me!

Something else I have to check. I believe the scissors-like shears above the "Miller" rollers were originally operated / triggered by the glass gatherer, so in the beginning it was really for handgathered (slag) marbles. Not sure how long that type of shear was used at Peltier, but the (Empire) gob feeded didn't come along until later. I wonder . . .

I think single-seam CAC slags are machine made, don't you? It can happen easily enough if conditions are just right. As a visual (nothing else) think of the design of the Vitro "horseshoe" cats . . . I can envision one edge of the falling glass stream hanging up momentarily on one edge of the shear; and the weight of the glass and gravity continuing to pull the rest of the stream down through the shear, so that when the gob is lopped off = one seam. Or what looks like one seam. I suppose it would really be one seam "overwrting" another. I thinnk there's something about that in the MK swirl article. I'll dig it out and see . . . Or do you think both single- and double-seamed CAC slags are hand gathered?

And this makes good sense to me, too.

I know. I've been having trouble with my own sign language. But I think we're getting closer. I just have to figure out what the difference would have to be between, say, the Peltier patent set up and the type of shear you're talking about . . . I think I'll go off in a corner and mull it over. And eat a turkey burger with some butter and salt and pepper and a lot of mayo and mustard and ketchup and onion. That usually helps.

Not sure I understand that. Are you saying companies let already-sheared gobs of glass fall into a cup of some sort before those gobs hit the rollers? I'm not certain, but I think even Akro's spinner cups (whether spinning or not) came before the shears, didn't they? I could be wrong. It would be easier for me to believe that if the white were introduced more-or-less right at, or above, the orifice funnel (by whatever means), the composite stream could be made to waver enough (think John McCormick's spaghetti noodle) -- and/or be affected enough by the action of the moving shear, to produce a transparent swirl, or something like it. Or, as in the Peltier patent, the glass flows into a "cup" (or funnel with bushings) and piles up before it hits the shears.

OMG . . .

Break on through to the other side . . .

Two? Maybe 3?

One of my favorites -

The Peltier patent we've been talking about in other threads has the opaque white entering the tank near the orifice, where the stream leaves the tank, and they're slags. Or do you mean really really really right before, like through the use of nozzles or in-tank pots (crucibles?) right there where the glass begins to drop? That might be something. Hope Dink comes back with some ideas! Meanwhile, I;m gonna go back and stare at mibstified's Blue Lace, and the purple beauty above it . . .

Those are crazy . . .

I like the distinction between streams of opaque glass (transparent swirls) and . . . well, maybe globs of opaque glass (slags) . . . yes, that's the kind of distinction I was hoping you'd help me make! I feel better already. Gonna go get a Friday cupcake from the cupcake truck.

I guess I'm using the wrong terminology, but I don't know what else to call them. When I'm using the term transparent swirls I'm only talking about those made during the 1930s and 1940s. I don't mean to include CAC transparent swirls. (Much as I love them.) Just those made by the later companies, like Alox, Davis, etc. I've had beginning collectors talk to me about not understanding why we don't call them slags too. That's what I'm trying to get at. (Then I'd like to play some more with CAC transparent swirls!) Maybe another new thread?

Well, turns out I only have one. Transparent green base glass with 6 ribbons, although most of each ribbon is on the surface (opposite of iceberg, I guess). The three semi-opaque odd-base-colored ones I have only have four ribbons. Which doesn't stop me from still liking the one that looks like tomato juice . . .

That's what I think . . . (It may all have to do with money . . . )