Steph

No Duffy I haven't been on many ships. I live 6 blocks from Lake Michigan in a shipbuilding town so I might be able to bluff it, but no I don't know a lot about ballast. But this thread was exactly not about the proper use of ballast. It was about people claiming things were ballast as a legal loophole. Huge difference. General ignorance could be what let 'em get away with it. How many people have been able to smuggle stuff because the laws and the officials were dense? Anyway I knew at least one other person besides myself was interested in the facts of the ballast story. It's part of marble history. I don't bust in on your threads and call 'em crap. The opposite is true. I mostly try to stay out of your threads. I posted in a couple last month but I was respectful. In private I defend the jabo posting to my friends who don't like either that or my historical trivia. LOL My vintage collector friends acknowledge that we all have a right to post but they still feel like the Jabo threads are using up all the oxygen in the room.

haha. I guess I could try a patent law forum. But Brian has usually already thought out all the MFC questions before I ask 'em. Thought he might know. Or Galen or someone else who likes historical technicalities.

six views and seller managed to avoid showing the "ends", or anyway the areas I wanted to see. lol! That pattern is unnacheral!

Not used as ballast. Claimed as ballast. Loophole. Reading about how Hong Kong got into the marble making business I got the strong though unconfirmed feeling that Japan was trying to launder marbles through Hong Kong to get around Britain's tariffs on non-commonwealth goods. It was awkward and one of the inducements for Hong Kong to go into the marble business themselves. Or that's the feeling I got from the portion of the article I could read about the marble industry in Hong Kong. If marbles were shipped as so-called ballast in the 1800's as claimed - not saying they were - but if they were, maybe it was to escape the high tariff on toys. I don't know the 1800's tariff(s) on toys off hand. Or what the tariffs may have been on toys from Japan before the reciprocal trade agreement. But in 1909, the tariff on toy marbles was 35%. I know that because someone tried to escape it by calling their marbles "unset precious stones". That would have gotten them through with only a 10% tax. They didn't get away with it. (article) In 1875, the tax might have been 50% on children's toys. That's what it sounded like in a case regarding glass balls for Christmas trees. The decision hinged on whether they were beads or toys. There was lots of haggling over the letter and the spirit of the customs laws. The stakes were high. I think customs tried to force Marble King to pay a toy tax on their marble bags ... maybe the cloth ones from Japan. But I believe this one Marble King won. The bag might have been fun but the ruling was that it was still packaging, not a toy. iiuc. We just heard about a modern-day case of someone hoping to semanticize themselves out of a hefty tax. Pringles in England. 0% tax on "foodstuffs" or Britain's 17.5% (now 15%) tax on "potato chips"? Well, naturally Proctor and Gamble fought for 0% and England's dept. of revenue fought for the other. P&G won last year but just lost on appeal. That's millions of dollars per year. Every million counts, right? It does sound sorta fishy that people wouldn't recognize toy marbles for what they were and charge appropriate fees in 1950 but the claim was made pretty loudly. And the general marble import situation at least was debated in Congress. The U.S. government was intent on playing nicey nice with Japan. Maybe they did let them get away with it.

1955

Here are some clips while I'm going through my files. Israel's credit from 1959: Pink's from 1962: Fisher's, from 1966 and 1970 (including 'em both just to show the story seems to have started before Fisher sold the company 🙂

LOL. I specially asked Carole to post pix of her puppies. :-) Thanks Carole! Chase is looking very good! I'm so happy for him. :-)

Whether marbles were useful as ballast, it sounds as if they were at times legally considered ballast. When I think of all the red tape and technicalities and loopholes in customs and commerce laws, it's not too hard to believe. (click to enlarge) Marbles-as-ballast stories were around in the 1800's also and have always intrigued me! LOL But I do like this article for another obvious reason -- the Japanese cat's eye story and how that affected the marble industry in America. The ballast story the article tells struck me as reasonable in part because the article's overall tone is so calm in comparison with some of the other things published about the marble industry that year. The employment figures it gives seem credible, in contrast with an article written by controversial labor columnist Victor Reisel. From January through April there was a flurry of news in connection with a reciprocal trade agreement with Japan. Spokespeople such as Clinton Israel and Roger Howdyshell spoke in favor of an increased tariff on marbles to protect the industry from inequitable Japanese business practices. The concensus of the marble industry seemed to be that they would have to close their doors on July 1 if they didn't get their tariff on Japanese imports. The dilemma for Congress was balancing U.S. industries' needs with the perceived need to nurture Japan's economic recovery so that Japan wouldn't accept trade incentives from Russia and its allies. The trade agreement was passed in May; the marble tariff amendment was voted down. And then in late July Reisel's article ran, declaring that the marble industry was gone. He said that as he typed, it employed only 10 people, and those 10 would be laid off by the time his article went to print. I know there were severe challenges but obviously the industry didn't completely shut down. Apparently Reisel didn't call anyone to check on the status of the industry between when he first talked to Howdyshell and July. He simply said the industry was gone, and used that as a symbol of what could happen in other American industries. A couple of other dates of interest: Howdyshell claimed in a 1986 interview that Marble King got started in cat's eyes in June 1955. The Vitro book says that Fisher debuted their cat's eye in Sept. 1954. If I understand correctly Vitro's clearie line was also popular and they hit gold again in 1959 with All-Reds. Side note about Reisel ... the next year he was blinded by someone who didn't like his writing -- they threw acid in his face. He kept writing.

Thanks Brian. That's pretty much how I figured it ... that he might have done it fairly easily, but perhaps not with everything else he had going on. Funny thing, I ran across yet another Tennessee marble reference today. If one newspaper column is to be believed, in 1955 there were some in government who thought that American marbles at that time came from Tennessee and only Tennessee.

Found a 1943 Galveston, TX mention with a 24-inch-trophy, and some of the runners-up were said to have received "athletic sweaters bearing 'marble king' emblems". It was a championship between "orphans' homes" though, and the trophy was for his home not for him, if I am reading correctly. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd place winners got medals. The sweaters went to the 4th through 6th place winners. It is very plausible that this is part of Berry Pink's ongoing involvement with tournaments. What's still up in the air and in doubt for me, is how extensive, formal or organized his involvement was. Also, If Marble King trophies tended to be for institutions such as schools, that could help explain their rarity. Men might hang onto the prizes they won as boys, and those might eventually work their way into estate sales. Trophies won by a school or orphan's home, for example, seem more likely to go where they might never be seen again. That's just a hunch on my part, tho'. [space reserved for the article] ======================== Haven't recovered that other article, but here's a sorta cool mention from 1941. An explanation for Berry Pink scaling back his tournament involvement - and confirmation that he did scale back. It suggests a plan for expansion again in 1942, but of course the war could have affected that. There seems to still be a little bit of inconsistency with other articles I've seen. I'm fairly sure I've seen one or more 1941 articles suggesting that Berry Pink was still donating trophies this year, but oh well! This is still cool! Here's the Berry Pink mention at the end of the article: Click here for the whole article.

not known? could this be it: The New York syndicate who bought 80% of the patent would license the bearing making process for a fee to people who made ball bearings, and Martin would get a cut of what they negotiated for themselves?

I grin everytime I see this one. Maybe someone else will think it's cute too. (click to enlarge)

hadn't seen it. have now. $312.07.

Martin Christensen was in good shape in 1900 when he sold his revolutionary steel ball machine patent to the New York capitalists for $25,000. That would have given him a fairly comfortable retirement even if he hadn't started his marble company. Plus he only sold 4/5ths of the invention. What was the remaining 1/5 of the invention worth to him? Did he collect royalties on ball bearing sales? or what?

That's funny in so many ways. :icon_lmao: oh yes, LOVELY marbles.

yup. until we do, here's a pretty picture to keep the imagination firing. Carole, do you recognize any of the landscape? Hmmmm ... looks like this became the site of "Centennial Park" (click to enlarge) (click for more modern view) well, I've looked a bit and haven't found any confirmation yet that Leighton made it to Nashville. Giving up the search for the mo'.

Still waiting for the after shot, Gary! I was hoping to find some story -- some proto-urban legend -- about kids soaking mibs in lard to make them look nicer for their trades. haven't found it ... yet. do I have too little faith in humanity? :Evil_1: :icon_lmao:

LOL ... I thought about that! But then I got sidetracked by this .... (click to enlarge) Seriously, wouldn't it be cool if we discovered that site and it isn't under some skyscraper or parking lot, maybe just in a city park if you're lucky! tho' I guess the first question would be whether J.H.L. actually followed through with his plans.

No, I mean it!! LOLOL

*hehe*

1897 Stone: An Illustrated Magazine Published 1897 Item notes: v. 14 Original from the New York Public Library Not a lot of material but there are two J. H. Leighton factories mentioned on the same page. And one of the references is weird. See p. 630. So ... did Leighton make marbles in Tennessee? Marbles are also mentioned here. One of the 19th century documents claiming that figure marbles were made in molds.

Now that the other thread has gone to the dogs .... and rodents ....... Just kidding .... and just having fun ! (kermit the kitten, found somewhere on the web) Don't go here:

That's fierce. Watch out brother!

:icon_lmao: <------- if that's okay with you, Sue.

Thanks. lol. I keep telling people machinery is over my head. I actually have a gigantic wheel a lot like this one. Coz' it's 'pretty' (lol). (it's painted red inside.) But I never had the slightest idea what made it "go". A leather belt, hmmm. Good to learn. Carskadden's book on Colonial Period marbles has been recommended to me in connection with this. Onyx being softer than marble marble, from what I'm hearing it sounds like a process similar to that used to grind limestone might have been employed. . . okay, I'm getting lightheaded. machines!!!!!! *whoow* I need to go look at something fluffy now.