Steph

thanks. x2

Dani, your 3rd mib there is simply gorgeous. Just wow. Okay, this is why I try not to comment on any of the specific mibs in these color of the month threads. Once I get started, I don't want to stop.

Or instead of recycling that Bogard I could have said, DANG SUE! these are kinda creepy! . . . . .

Mostly a bump, but I'll recycle this fiery pic so it's not an empty post.

Another sweet "dilemma"

Is this one a diaperfold? Single seam. Fairly clean loop on one side. But it had a hiccup on the other side. It's great. But I would hesitate to post it as an example of a DF if I was trying to explain the concept to someone. Very cool in more than one way but not quite this:

Kevin, I don't know Scott's exact role, but I know that he was instrumental in the production of the repro medals which were sent to ACRN for their study.

So, is that a natural layer of something which shows up on top of the hardened silver? Anything to do with oxidation? That's where my guesses are heading at the moment. thanks for playing with me, by the way.

lol

Hmmmm, snickering at where I second guessed myself, but not my main guess. Does that mean I got it right the first time? So what is the black about?

Very cool looking. My guess is repro of a 1933 medal. Or something used in the process of making the repros? I don't have any idea how involved the process is or what the black has to do with it.

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.