Steph

sweet shades in the middle.

I am suspicious of any absolute answers on the first one. Especially since it looks like different colors in your different photos. What color is the base glass? Greenish? goldish? I'm confused too! (lol) Agreed on the agate. About Bogard, I think there might be some color limitations which aren't being taken into consideration. The classic Bogard pix which get posted have pretty bubbles for sure, and some wispy white, but do Bogards come close to that red in shade or transparency? bottom line for me: this might not be one which can be id-ed from pix. That's pretty much all I can say on it.

Thanks Sue. Interesting post. Suhweet mibs. I just love (NOT!) how modern collectors' definitions sometimes contradict manufacturers' own names. That's a hoot. I know that Joe Street was pretty careful when he listed names for the marbles at his site, Joemarbles.com. Careful in at least this sense: he tried to get currently used names, and he sometimes omitted names he thought might cause issues. On some of his marbles he has more than one name, some of which might be conflicting, because different groups seem to have different naming traditions. But mostly he's open to suggestions for changes, because he knows there will be places people think need changing.

The subject had come up in the thread on fake sulphides. I thought perhaps some people might be interested in pursuing it in its own thread. And I thought there was a lot of info to be considered in the single view of the medal Scott showed even if no other views were available. If someone does have some comparison pix they would be willing to share that would be awesome. I actually have some detailed pix in front of me because I am looking at the ACRN article on repro medals. I know that both Scott and Hansel had a part in getting the examples for ACRN to study. However, there are copyright issues and I promised not to post any pix from the article. In case this thread is through and anyone else wants to pursue the subject further, you might want to check out the February 2000 issue of Antique and Collectors Reproduction News. Vol. 9 #2.

I think I usually call that turquoise, though real turquoise is also often sorta greenish.

I have to go with Mark, and with the general advice of not voting Kokomo without really really solid reason to. We're talking SUPER low odds of general marbles ending up as Koko. And that is not a style I recognize as especially Koko. In this case, I don't know what all possibilities there might be for your marble, but I've seen dug Akros with a color combo similar to that. Dark transparent red and bubbly honey gold with a wisp of white.

Kewl!

p.s., thanks for the reminder. There was a Kokomo thread which I needed to move to the archives. Kokomo Examples

Kokomo Opalescent Glass Co. Still around http://www.kog.com/ They made glass for stained glass windows (among other things?) And for a short time around 1940, they made marbles also. With a machine they bought from Peltier. If I understand correctly they thought it might be a way to profitably use scrap glass from their main works. But they soon gave it up and sold the machine back to Peltier. There are not that many Kokomo marbles floating around. Most never left the general Kokomo area. Again if I understand correctly. Most kokomos look like pelts. But some look like marbles from other makers too. Very tantalizing possibilities but other than a few obvious classic examples it is generally not a good idea to get your hopes up that your marbles are Kokomos. The odds are simply not in favor of Kokomo since so few were made relatively speaking.

LOL. Good one. Here's my (possibly) single seam cat eye.

Here is the famous diagram often posted. Someone said it was Alan's.

O.K. That's what I thought too. So the question now is . . . which ones? Ric, my personal preference would be to give that name only to those which have the most classic "diaper fold" construction. To me this means a very clean wrap and join. Before I would boldly call a single-seamer a diaper fold I would want the fold to be so clear that I could picture the little baby's legs dangling from the sides of the seam. I need photoshop to draw a baby into the picture! LOL But I personally can see the baby's legs poking out here. Chubby little legs. So cute. ;-) . . . . . . . . . Even when I'm feeling bold sometimes it comes out timidly by the time I post about it! LOL. So I want to be really really sure before I claim it as a diaperfold. I very much prefer to err on the side of caution. I don't want to be the one whose ebay auctions people post about. I grade conservatively. I count colors conservatively. If I'm not 100% sure I don't count it. Peltier baseball marbles are another example for me. I want to see a very particular look before I declare one of my Rainbos a baseball. Having just 2 sorta loose pair of ribbons doesn't do it for me. tho' I know that's okay by some others' definitions. One of my exceptions to the strict rule is that if I know a kid used the names, I won't say the kids were wrong just because they don't match modern collectors' stricter defintions. LOL. An example of that is that I don't require "snotties" to be CAC's. I know that back in the day, kids called other marbles snotties also. Tie goes to the kids who actually played with the mibs! LOL (I guess that might apply to pelt baseballs also but I'm still not sure about when the name baseball was first used for rainbos. :-) /end digression (lol) There is a diagram which SOME have found useful in the past to show classic diaper fold construction. Some may not like diagrams in general, but I don't recall anyone actually disagreeing with its accuracy. I'll see if I can find it.

Thanks for the response. Sorry I didn't answer the questions sooner. That was the only pic I had of that medal. I saw it in mswitzer's diaper fold thread and thought it might make for an interesting discussion. It gave me a chance to try to pick out some of the signs I saw in the ACRN article on repro medals. That article attributed most differences in appearance between old and new to the new ones being cast in molds where the old ones were "die struck the same way coins are minted." They elaborate: "A separate engraving of each side is forced against cold metal under great pressure. The result is a virtually flawless piece with very high detail." The molds for the new ones were made from old medals. So they have precision issues due to being copies, and then they have some problems connected with pouring hot metal rather than stamping cold. if I understand correctly.

Interesting post. This is going to be a test in how to respond when there is a difference of opinion. Possibly very strong. Well, very strong in my case. Steve, I respectfully disagree with your take here. I don't think that "diaper folds" have anything to do with "fold pontils". This might be the first reference I have seen to "diaper fold pontils". I'm very curious as to what led you to make that association.

single seam pastel

Are you in a hurry to get an ID? To me the comments I've read mean, "keep it in the mystery bin, wait for more information to be revealed." More interesting that way, anyway (imho). It's the search right? ;-) Ric's Akro for example looks better formed in some ways. The textured seams on yours keep me guessing/hoping. There are color similarities between Akros, Alleys and Vitros. I just wouldn't want to chuck it in yet and settle on anything.

This 1st pic is a little fuzzy but it looks like some of the patches in this first box have both yellow and white on an ade base. Sue brightened the 2nd box. I remember Brian asked about whether those were more corks or more swirls. I need to look up the answer again. (additional images, click to enlarge) . . . . . . (Hi Ric, I know you were on the edge of your seat waiting for me to post these pix which you've probably already seen anyway. lol.)

I believe the term "diaper fold" is generally applied only to certain CAC's. My present belief is that those CAC's were entirely machine made. I don't know how they got to be single-seamed, but my present impression is that they were gobfed. I'll be interested in hearing other opinions tho' since I do still have trouble picturing the process which could create them.

Ric, not all, I'm pretty sure. Here are some single-seamers, at least partly Akro. I think the pic is Mibstified's. These would pretty definitely not be hand-gathered.

I kinda did think it was "special", but for a backwards reason, namely that I'm not seeing Jabo. I wouldn't mind having it for my collection of non-Jabo buttcracks. That collection is not quite as special as my non-CAC "diaperfolds", but I still think non-Jabo buttcracks are cool. Before I learned the term "buttcrack", I thought of that structure as a "tulip", or maybe just a "flower". there's the bud in the middle, and the stem, and two leaves on the side. About as good as I ever learned to draw a flower as child. I mean, I can't say it is impossible for it to be a Jabo, but to me it looks like a WV swirl. Some of my "flowers":

Why oh why did you have to decide to trim your collection when I've already shot my marble budget for the year. G'luck! !!!!!

p.s., happy b-day m!b$. I knew it was yours too but I was still submerged! Hope it was a good one!

Happy (way way) belated birthday. from a dope. still trying not to be tho'. Please no pipe bombs.

Thank you everybody!