Steph

Hi ... welcome. What does the label say? Micro-something? Mixture of styles there and possibly a wide range of ages. It's helpful to put the marbles in rows. (Not too many in one group. 10 is _okay_ but is on the high side of what it's comfortable to discuss in one thread.)

Gray Virginians? Hatfields? McCoys?

Welcome Mr. CoolestStuff. Thanks for posting. The red and white on white are unusual. Bud, I can't remember that one being translucent. I tried to find it but it's not where I hoped it would be. ... my unpacking has stalled .....

Animals who came to visit

!!! Congrats. I'm jealous! I did go out to an antique store once this year ... just to get my feet wet ... no luck ... this is inspiring. Ooh, those mossy marbles with half-and-half patches are interesting.

Pelt patches don't usually get names other than the Peerless company name. (Ignore the pearlescent patch -- that's a sort of named one. )

That has escaped being named?!

C'mon, Galen! Show us your otherwise nameless Rainbos.

I think that's in the "lined crockery" family. Also known as a "jasper". Jaspers can be worth listing individually ... or keeping for your own collection if you think you think you want to save some of the nicer marbles. Check out some prices here: http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&_nkw="lined crockery"&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&rt=nc&_trksid=p2045573.m1684

#1. Akro #2. Akro or Pelt #3. Master #4. Pelt #5. ? MK ? #6. Master #7. ? Master ? #8. Started to say Vitro, but now I'm leaning Akro. ?? #9. Vitro

The cloudy surface? Some makers frost their marbles with acid on purpose. For vintage marbles, it usually means they spent time in water, e.g., in an aquarium. If you have a worn group, that's where I'd put 'em. Yes, they're commons, but I'm not sure how you would describe the condition. #4, 5, 6 are Vitro, by the way. At least I think #4 is. #1 is Akro I think. Maybe #2 also Akro. I figure Pelt for #3 (with tiny niggling thought about Vitro.)

If vintage, gotta go with Pelt on #5. Master on #4. Those extra pics showed just the right parts.

Not sure, but I don't think transparent swirls would usually get put in the flame category. And one thing about the spirit of the flame is you don't want it to be something that someone has to work hard to see. Flames kinda need to be in your face -- the kind of marble which speaks for itself. ... does that makes sense? It's an art, not a science, as they say.

Well, 8 is showing more white than I thought from the original photos. If it is not too hard to see it in hand, I guess put it in the transparent swirl pile .... I wouldn't bill it as a flame in any case.

Some flowers for the host (not mine)

My momma's small tea set and her tiny tea set (so cute) both met with misfortune at the hands of me and my cats. I have these left to remember by.

(You're doing fine! And it is surprising how complicated these small round toys can be!)

#1 and #3 are some kind of patch. Not in the swirl pile. Kinda unusual patch though -- I don't have a guess for maker. Not sure what to think of #4. Hard to see. Does it have a ribbon which traces all around inside? Or does it have several ribbons which sort of meet up on the end? #5 ... more views please ... #9 ... maybe someone will think slag ... I don't know.

Re #8: The underlying swirl in the mostly solid color marbles can be interesting. However ... I wouldn't put it in with a flame lot. I'm still seeing _essentially_ a solid color.

very nice.