Steph

I see it! good job! my pleasure, glad I could help.

kewl, thanks duffy! this is kinda the start of my semi-dateable MK collection. nothing else to compare it to in hand. many of the mibs are translucent. maybe transparent inside. not sure. I'll have to check more closely.

Picasa? I'm not familiar with that. Do you load your pix straight from your camera to there? Do you have a Windows computer? On mine I save a picture from the computer screen by "right clicking" on the image. I choose the "Save Picture As" option to download it. I usually save to my Documents folder, especially if I want to upload it again soon.

There's an address. no zip. Here's side two.

It does say to email them if you have questions. Anyone wanna see what they say about the origin? I'm not gonna. Just wondering if they know, and would disclose.

Has anyone else bought a bag mostly (if not only) to be able to ID the commons they can't quite bring themselves to give up on? I have a small tray full of mibs I haven't been able to give in and call Vitro. I bought these to compare to those! LOL

p.s., nothing personal about the image choice. Well, nothing personal in a bad way! I actually hoped you'd like it. I chose it from my file of cat pix. I LOVE cat pix. :-)

Hmmmm . . . it worked for me. Why don't you save this image to your harddrive and try to attach it. We know this one is a good size. It would make a good test pic.

Hmmm, I haven't tried to follow Lou's steps. I'll try that on a smallish image and see what I think about them. In the meantime while I'm testing, are your pix wider than an average computer monitor?

Here are my new Marble King "all-reds" with a couple simple akro patches tossed in for good measure. at least that's how I think some would be id-ed without the bag around 'em. Doncha HaTE commons? Here's a shooter version of the style. (not mine)

love the akros. rest not too shabby either. :-)

The size limit for posting is 425 KB, I think. What are the physical dimensions on your photos? like how many pixels by how many pixels?

Jack, how large are you photos?

p.s., I was sorta hoping it might be related to these. Obviously not identical. But it's not unheard of for Pelts to have two yellow-ish ribbons and one apiece of a two other colors. . . . just a thought . . .

LOL. To me it looks like the "blob" is a ribbon. but maybe that is wishful thinking on my part.

Baumann says "bright greens and yellows" in reference to reproductions which have been appearing since the 1960s but he might not be talking about the glass. Maybe the figure itself. So nevermind. Still an interesting section. Discusses California sulphides at length. Just maybe not very applicable to this thread. The ACRN article is three pages illustrated with many photos, showing differences between original die struck medals and the repros which were cast in molds, the molds being made from the originals.

Cool! Thanks George! I knew that once upon a time. Somewhere along the way I forgot. I need to regroup and start organizing things over here again. Right now most of my saved pix and documents are on DVDs waiting for a reformat of my computer . . . when I find the system disk!

Fel, I thought there was a blue one also. White, orangey-yellow, and blue? no?

Re. reproduction sulphides, see Baumann's Collecting Antique Marbles. (pp. 139-41 in 4th ed., p. 88 in 3rd ed.) Re. reproduction tournament medals, see Antique & Collectors Reproduction News, Vol. 9, #2, Feb 2000.

They're Pelt "Clear Rainbos" in a jobber box. lol, no competition will be coming from me, Charles. Hope you win!

If Hansel sold reproduction items as new then where's the easy money? And if he sold them as new, then wasn't that "warning" the marble community? The community may have forgotten, and newbies like me have come along who simply don't yet know enough to suspect that there are repros. But we all learn at some point that there are things we don't know and we need to learn how to tell the new from the old. I admit to bias here because I've always found Hansel generous with information. Still it seems to me the issue isn't about greed. To me it seems closer to the debate over whether contemporary handmade marbles should be signed by the maker. Sorry if I'm missing out on something here.

It's looking like the box was used longer than suspected. Simms won his office in 1955 and Riemann in 1956. I posted a couple of articles over at Marble Mental. (sorry if I wasn't recognizable as "twinrivers". . . . That's supposedly a Wisconsin marbles reference. )

Neato. That's still on my wishlist!

That's all I can say. Yowzers. (WISH they were mine!)

Well I still probably have at least a 100 more names to patch in there . . . when I'm in the right frame of mind. In the meantime, here's a cool song with marble names. :-) All the Marbles