Steph

Thanks Winnie. That's the bag. Does have a little different look to it. That's why it stood out to me. Gladding sounds good to me.

That might have been it. Sounds about right. Thanks.

I remember someone posted a bag of marbles which looked like Vitros. It might not have been marked Vitro though. The bag might have been Winnie's. My picture retrieval ability is all shot to heck, so I can't go look it up. So I thought I'd put this out there as an open question. Could be more fun that way. What do you have by way of modern-ish Vitro packaging? Or probable Vitros! :-) Say 1960 to 1990. Thank you very much.

wow, I'd never seen one like that black and white.

Catastrophe. haha. That's what I thought at the time. Now I wish I had played more marbles with my boy. *sniffle*

Mr. Batweasel used to like marbles. and buttons. I would have said so earlier, but it makes me cry to think of it because I didn't let him play with them very much. I wish I had. All day long. :-) More pix would be lovely. I love pix of kitties. Mr. Batweasel and two of my present babies, from 10 years ago.

Counting this one, I'm up to two. Looks like nice condition.

Obviously notmiller. not with that feathering

Of course it's okay! You already put your obligatory marble in at least one of the photos! What could anyone complain about?! LOL

Here's a page which mentions different chemicals used in coloring glass. I can't vouch for its accuracy, but it looks pretty cool so far. http://1st-glass.1st-things.com/articles/glasscolouring.html

Update. Yellow Jackets and Blackies were still being advertised in the late 1960's. This is confusing to me! Wondering if it was old material recycled in a new ad, or if the styles were really still being made then, or if the names were being used but the styles were not. or what? Here's the 1968 ad Al posted. Edit: it's a 1965 ad. Still a little late. I'm leaning to the theory that the ad writers might not have been up-to-date on Vitro's actual production. Seems to me that All-Reds should have been in this ad in 1965, if any named patch styles were there. To the best of my understanding at this time.

darlin' kitteh! Pic overflows with personality.

Neat! Took me a minute or 10 to figure out the "not so micro-crystalline" part of the title. *embarrassed* Those are some cool little bits.

Really is very cool. Ya made decals? Neat machine!

Sue, just remember. Men came up with imaginary numbers.

At that size I'm guessing they might be one of my favorite Jabo shooters. That was my first thought, before you announced the size.

I'll give you a buck twenty three. please send straight to me.

LOL. I got a B in fluid dynamics. That was a hard class.

3 dimensions! A 1 inch cube + a 1 inch cube is not a two inch cube. Two true 1 inch marbles added together and rounded into a sphere would give . . . uh, I'll be back. [space reserved. I get kinda panicky at this stage. ;-)] edit: Two true 1 inch marbles would give about 1.26 inches . . . (cube root of 2)

Great find! I'd keep the mibs with the box if I were you. Er, um, I mean you'd keep the mibs with the box if you were me. uh, lol, I've never understood that saying. But kewl set of mibs!

1 and 1/2 total. One 7/8" marble. Plus one half of another one. Glue it on top. Then smooth it out so there aren't any visible seams. Make sure the glue has the same COE as the glass.

I'm believing my figure of 2.37 three-fourths inch mibs to 1 one-inch mib. I find it kind of mind boggling though. Two 3/4" mibs fitting inside a 1" mib? Check out the 7/8 figure. (8x8x8)/(7x7x7) is about 1.49 So it would take half again as much glass to move up from a 7/8" mib to a 1" mib.

5/8 ---> . . . 512/125 = 4.096 3/4 ---> . . . 64/27 = approx 2.37 maybe.

Which St. Clair was Bob talking about?