Steph

Hey, thanks Pop, that's a pretty good image. I'd never seen a case like that before this one. But as far as I can tell, those are feet for a stool. (or yeah, maybe a table?) (Why they needed a case, I cannot guess.) They're sort of industrial marbles! LOL

That's a new one for me BJ! haha, that's pretty funny, David.

If it's not fractures, is it debris?

Do you mean the diminishment of the memory of the people who were making the marbles? That's what I think is so cool about having a 1940's article interviewing the boss. That's pretty fresh. Adding the Paul Bunyans to the mix is a twist. So here are the two main questions I have in reference to that article. (trying to summarize and still keep the topic open while someone comes up with pix of Paul Bunyans for Stacy :-) 1. is it believable that Ravenswood made big marbles using that 2nd orifice? 2. if yes, then would those large marbles be the Paul Bunyans, or would they have been swirls?

I've been taking a spin through my picture files looking for a particular ad. No luck with that yet but I stumbled over this pic which cried out to be posted somewhere. I thought it was from ebay but don't see the little ebay watermark. Wish I had a bigger copy but here it is! Nifty set of ball and claw thingies for a stool. Anyone have any unusual marbley things to share? Been awhile since we had an "extras" thread.

I guess it could be argued that the people EARNED their right to be treated with respect, and given the benefit of the doubt. To a large degree I believe that. However there are some behaviors which I think are wrong, no matter who does them, but they are excused when some do them. And to get along, board members just go along. This comment about questionable behaviors is NOT about Alan. Please no one go tell him I was piling on him! :-)

Cees, you are correct. There are some people whose auctions I wouldn't dare post, even for a relatively innocent question. There are some chinas I questioned from Marblealan. I wrote to him about them and he said maybe I was right because lots of other people had asked him about them. I know some of the people who wrote because we talked about our thoughts - in private. Alan posted more like them later so maybe he remained convinced that they were authentic. I still wonder about those chinas sometimes. For all I know, Alan was right that they were old. I just wonder. I have an acquaintance who collects ceramics whom I've been toying with asking about those - in private. I mention these details now simply to say, "you are right" that some sellers are treated with great respect even when believed to be in error while others are criticised with no holds barred.

What an interesting assortment, Lee, er Marble Wife, er what would you prefer to go by. :-)

Hi Jack. :-) Right or wrong, this is what I was remembering -- not so much a controversy over California sulphides. More a controversy about modern sulphides in general.

Are you thinking of the marbles made by Norbert Geitner?

Stalling with some pix from Lloyd which Sue posted in an earlier discussion. This is one of the marbles pictured in Baumann's book and one of the marbles studied by ACRN.

Party Hardy!

My info will be from Baumann's Collecting Antique Marbles and from a scientific study reported in Antique & Collectors Reproduction News. I'm not aware of any particularly strong controversy surrounding them. I thought that they were generally believed to be modern. Anyone have a pic? It'll take me awhile to get my notes together on this. I'm on my way out of the house now so can't even start yet. I definitely won't be offended if someone scoops me with the facts. Later gators! -s

I have some good material on these. It'll take me a bit to dig it out and summarize. I was hoping someone who knows the situation better than I would beat me to the punch. But I do have some good info. I'll be back.

A 1 and 1/4" orifice seems a pretty obscure thing to simply make up. I haven't read any reviews on it yet but I expect a magazine with a name like Science and Mechanics to be more credible than, say, some of the newspaper filler articles of the time. So even if that particular "orifice" wasn't used a LOT, it sure sounds (to me) as if it existed and that Charles Turnbull deemed it worth discussing.

Here's a 7/8"-er a friend of mine has with his Ravenswoods. I used to want to argue with him just on the basis of size. But now I can't. It's blue and brown.

Will try to do my own twist on it. I do have some materials I haven't seen elsewhere. But here's a good start: Ravenswood Glass Novelty Works And of course the Ravenswood chapter in American Machine-Made Marbles is to be recommended, and will give me source info. I also have a Ravenswood monograph published by the WV Museum of American Glass.

Here's a passage from an article written about the operations at Ravenswood in about 1944. Published in 1945 in the Science and Mechanics magazine, but written when Charles Turnbull was still alive. (He died in 1944.) Sure seems to be a "we were there" account with specific info about the production of big marbles, 3/4" and up. Any reason to doubt it? I have a copy of the article, but you can read it at this page: Ravenswood Glass Novelty Works. It discusses the way Ravenswood made glass from batch and a little bit about the chemistry. Also mentions how the war was making it challenging to find the materials needed to make the glass. Pretty cool article actually. So anyway, seems pretty technical and detailed. And it discusses big 'ol Ravenswoods specifically. So where are they?

mumble mumble jealous grumble yeah, what Al said! lol. Hope you find some good 'uns!

Heard (and saw) some things which made me wonder about the authenticity of some of the boxes from the Morphy auction. Still some great names. The Mueller company was real. Glad to learn about it. But there's some question, for example, about whether the labels as affixed were original to the boxes. Anyone have any info or opinions on that? Comments welcome now or later. Thanks!

Check out the Virtual Kaleidoscope Museum. Van Derviele page: http://kaleidoscopemuseum.tripod.com/vanderviele.html

Yes! I can! at least some of them. Very cool! Thanks! Can even see some of the change in the way light reflects. It's uneven at the ridge. nice capture!

Nifty. And finally a facet I can see in the photo! lol Actually I have proven to myself that I can find facets in hand. But I am FAR from comfortable with them. Wonder if it's possible to SHOW them in pix in a way which agate newbies can understand. I'd heard the advice about looking at how light reflected off them. "Roll them around. And if the reflection jumps they're faceted." But still when I got some in my hand I was expecting something much more jumpy than I saw. I was thinking of something like a quilt of facets. A bunch of tiny flat surfaces all over the marble. But if I recall correctly, what I actually saw was sort of concentric rings of grinding. The reflection would only "jump" when it moved over to the next ring.

Here's to a beautiful day, and a bright new year.

Best of luck! Thanks for sharing your treasure with us for this short time! Any more thoughts on that? The pic with the size was added later. Wonder if everyone caught it, and how it factors into the observations.