Steph

I don't know about #1, but it's good to again hear someone acknowledge the possibility of an aquamarine-like Akro. Back when Kevin posted an aquamarine-like marble with ox, I brought up the subject of a similar marble being made by Akro, but no one would have any of that. I'm still thinking about the ones Ric mentioned on the bottom row, #3 and #4 in particular. But hey, thanks for the cheesecake !!

Bob knows that. But is it partially or wholy machine made? Here's his unabbreviated question: I'm intrigued by it having both a tail and the long single seam. Pretty wild.

Coolness!

What's the highest number of colors you've ever seen in a CAC?

will do

amazing depth. What's that spot hovering in the middle?

Clouds are awesome. Is that an opal in the shiny vortex?

I'll wait until I see it before I decide whether to be offended. I've always had a soft spot for Bill Pullman though. That's funny. Two knives mysteriously ended up in my posession with no explanation of where they came from. But only one of them was a theater knife. sorry.

Cool, thanks. The only 'other' one I could think of offhand was MibAuctions. Now I see that you have it, but without the little line under it I didn't notice. So ... for future reference, here it is with a little line under it. ;-) http://www.mibauctions.com

Well, that list of reflector patents started getting superlong, with lots of extra notes, because I never found THE patent I was looking for. The goal of my original search was to find the originator(s) of reflecting devices using marbles. However, I now realize I had a preconceived notion of what sort of device I wanted to see. I still haven't found a patent for such a device. Well, not a single patent. But I did remember seeing patent information on a reflector sold on ebay, so I checked that out and found three dates. It appears that multiple patents were involved. So far I have one match from above: May 28, 1930: Patent #1933633, Reflector (something about mounting reflectors, might not specify shape of reflector buttons) (awarded Nov. 7, 1933) .... oops, have to go, I'll finish this later. I don't know if this is a match for the 3rd patent, but it's cute: July 20, 1933: Patent #1946424, Direction Indicator (check out the picture of the signal) (awarded Feb. 6, 1934) (not totallly sure what the 3rd date on the reflector is) The June 18, 1929 patent might be tough to be sure about. It looks like an unusually large number of patents were awarded on this date. My experience isn't much so I don't know what's typical, but some of the patents awarded this day had been applied for in the 1830's. possibilities for the June 18, 1929 patent: Sept. 19, 1924: Patent #1717544, Vehicle Lamp Signal (bright idea of having headlights on both sides of the car instead of just in the middle, where you wouldn't be able to tell if an oncoming vehicle was a car or a motorcycle) Jan. 7, 1924: Patent #1717873, Journal Bearing (don't know what this is, and don't recognize it in the photo but ... I could easily have missed something, and maybe the item in the photo is only one part of a larger item)

Of course I have lots of patents bookmarked in different places to add as I come across them again. I intended to do something like this here, Legal Documents Pertaining To Marbles, but I'm starting over with this. The first two topics are going to be a little offbeat and might end up getting relegated to a post further down. They're first because they are two of my most recent searches so they're fresh on my mind. Marbles or other glass balls used in reflectors: Listed in order of filing date but that wasn't sufficient. In process of adding more date info. Note 1: list has "too many" non-spherical ones -- and even a non-glass example. might keep, might not. they show some of the "competition". Note 2: no idea if I've found the best, earliest solid glass sphere examples. There are so many different ways they might have been described. So far I've only searched at google patents. I don't know if they have all the patents. Note 3: there are later uses of glass spheres in reflector devices than what I've included. My search was mostly for info related to early automobile and highway reflectors. Note 4: reminder to look for "glass balls" or "spheres" or whatnot in different contexts after the reflector search is over. Note 5: it's possible that what I am looking for wouldn't have been called a "reflector". Maybe a "signal"? I need to approach this another way. Maybe read the patents. LOL. That way I can learn some more about the language, and maybe get some other leads. 1883: Patent #276428, Signal for Locomotive Head-Lights (this is a hollow glass ball filled with liquid) Nov. 18, 1912: Patent #1054274, Sign (the Burleigh patent referred to below, "lens" are used, not marbles, refers to the casing structure in patent #1,030,499) (awarded Feb. 25, 1913) 1925: Patent #1624300, Reflector-Jewel Mounting (not a marble, faceted) Aug. 18, 1927: Patent #1785422, Highway Signal (uses translucent "red glass balls") (awarded Dec. 16, 1930) April 16, 1930: Patent #1817646, Highway Sign ("spherical balls which may be of red glass") (awarded Aug. 4, 1931) Reissued: Re. 18438 (April 26, 1932) May 28, 1930: Patent #1933633, Reflector (something about mounting reflectors, might not specify shape of reflector buttons) (awarded Nov. 7, 1933) Oct. 8, 1930: Patent #1881588, Light Reflecting Unit (uses "a simple transparent glass sphere, as for example a glass marble") (awarded Oct. 11, 1932) 1930: Patent #1858382, Reflector Button and Holding Means Therefor (not a marble, something molded to a special shape) Mar 9, 1932: Patent #1955179, Illuminated Sign (uses buttons of some sort) (awarded Apr 17, 1934) July 30, 1932: Patent #2014558, Street Sign (This appears to be the patent "co-pending application" referred to in #1993595 below.) (awarded Sept. 17, 1935) Jan. 3, 1933: Patent #1993595, Light Reflecting Device (The language suggests this might be first item of this type to use ordinary toy marbles but see #1,881,588 above. #1,881,588 hadn't been awarded yet, so perhaps the inventor here was unaware the other had been filed. The inventor had a "co-pending application filed July 20, 1932". This patent refers to Burleigh Patent No. 1,054,274) (awarded March 5, 1935) 1933: Patent #1974575, Reflecting Sign (not yet sure what the reflecting "unit" is here) 1935: Patent #2095932, Reflector Button (specially shaped) June 24, 1935: Patent #2086314, Light Reflecting Device (awarded July 6, 1937) 1937: Patent #2177920, Reflector (Resin, not glass) 1938: Patent #2242382, Reflector Button ("hemispherical" "lens") 1939: Patent #2200339, Translucent Display (uses "spherical translucent inserts") 1940: Patent #2314566, Reflector 1941: Patent #2294930, Reflex Light Reflector (starting to get complicated) 1942: Patent #2345644, Light Reflecting Sign or Marker 1942: Patent #2367154, Reflector Element Marble shooters: many patents coming soon (edit: well, obviously they didn't come "soon" -- but there sure have been a lot of 'em patented) Others for later lists: Aug. 12, 1890: Design #20104, Shipping and Exhibiting Case

I have a small number. I like them. Wouldn't know how to market them. For what it's worth, I believe yours are made in Japan, could be 1950's, perhaps 1960's.

youhave2bid2win

The flip side is what gave me the idea about them getting around their paint puddling problem by firing these in stages. They couldn't seem to reach a happy medium with the brown. Either thick really fake looking glaze or the watery stuff. Looks sorta like maybe they sponged the thicker version on here. And they may still not have been happy with that "solution". It seems as if they may have decided to go more with something closer to black. The Prince Albert can lot shows what may be the lastest stage of their evolution. It is the last they received feedback for. Here's an excellent side by side of how they seem to have dealt with the bad browns -- avoid the shade, or rough it up in this bizarre manner. Because this is better than puddles? They're more affordable now than they were in 2007. A test wouldn't be that hard to do, assuming she lists again.

As noted in that 'other' thread I've been posting in for the better part of the day, I think the one at the top right here is new. Perhaps it's a Thornburgh or the work of another true and established artist. The seller of this lot does occasionally mix things up. But if no one recognizes it, then it's possible the seller made it themselves, and not as art. I think they'd be smart enough to realize it's better to let the line discontinue than to make it look too labored.

At some point, can't remember when, I set it up so that I could receive notices of their auctions. I guess I checked on them every month or two, so I may not have all of their gems, but as I said, I have quite a few. many more than I uploaded here. So now perhaps you see why I have my reservations about this set. I suspect it's the style they did the best, and so they have nearly perfected it. My opinion. My opinion, my opinion, my opinion. The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Lou, Sue, Invisionzone, the US Air Force, Department of Defense, the US Government, or the Audubon Society.

I actually may have enough to track the evolution of their mottled bennies. One of the first. I saved this pic in December 2007: This might be a mid-range version, or maybe these are actually legit. I downloaded these pix in September 2008. As the seller pointed out to us back in 2007, she had bought quite a few real bennies on ebay ... at the same time as she was buying clay and glaze. (she purchased the clay and glaze shown in post #5 here) Except for the tendency of their blue glaze to puddle, their blue benningtons were good enough to have believers even back in December of 2007. These looked quite unprofessional though, again from December 2007. Their brown ones seemed especially problematic for them. And I never did think much of their light blue shades: or their greens:

We were introduced to this seller in December of 2007. Remember this one?

If one buys enough cheap lots, one might get a few marbles which seem worth highlighting in smaller lots. These seem to be some of their best marbles. In other words, they really don't have a lot of quality mibs. But these look dug to me, so maybe they really did have a contact who could get them an authentic cache of old fancies. I still doubt it. Why buy when they can make? If the story they told us about their background was true, then I think may they have professional training with crafts. (an art teacher?) Before they were caught selling dubious benningtons, they were given negative feedback which alleged that they artificially toned coins to make them more attractive to coin collectors. Here are a couple more big lot pix with what I can't help thinking are a couple more "experimental" types. The "china" and the spotty one? (or does anyone recognize them as the work of an established contemporary artist?)

Or is it at least in the realm of possibility that the reason that they have so many of the fancy ones, enough to sell in multiple biggish groups of bennies, and smallish groups of bennies, and sprinkled in all of their faux-vintage lots -- is it at least possible that the reason for this is that they had more success making ones with mottled colors than they had with single color blues and browns? Maybe the white base paint doesn't well up as much as their blue or brown does, or maybe the welling doesn't show up as much in white. Or maybe they can apply the colors and fire them in stages. They're doing something different with their browns and blues -- roughing them up somehow -- possibly to deal with the puddling issues around the eyes. One of their more recent offerings: This might be a mix of old and new, since the true benni brown seems hard to achieve: Mixing 'em up to make faux vintage lots -- I have dozens more pix I could show there, but I'm trying to restrain myself. One reason I have so many is that I've had several months to collect them. This is the seller I was referring to back in November, when I said I didn't mean to call anyone out in my tricky auction language thread but did have someone else in mind for another time. I check their auctions occasionally for reasons which will become apparent soon if you haven't already guessed what I'm heading for.

Let me put it this way ... Has anyone heard of a barrel of these coming up on the market recently? Like in the last six months? What are the odds that someone who sells mega marbles and Jabos in the vintage handmade category could have acquired a barrel of authentic old ones? Now, this seller does seem to mix the occasional authentic bennington into their lots, maybe to give themselves an out when asked why they list as they do. So is it possible that they actually do have a barrel of old fancies?

I've seen a number of references to kids making their own clays in the 1800's. One was a report of them setting a barn on fire. don't remember running across any pirate tales yet.

lol That would be one of the reasons that common rainbos -- and even mega marbles -- can sell better than hard-to-find ceramics. eye appeal wins out.

I have a good reason for saying the ones on top are likely new. A seriously mondo good reason. I'm not exactly "teasing" you. More like inviting response while I think of how to tell why I'm sure there's something wrong with them. It's interesting to hear confirmation that they might mix too easily into my authentic collection. I avoided saying they were "scary close" to the real thing, because I realize "they're only benningtons", so they're nothing to get "scared" over. But they are uncannily close. p.s. here's the flipside of the first set:

I wouldn't want these near my antique benningtons. I'm reasonably sure they are new. But I don't know that I'd recognize them as fakes if I ran across them on their own. Compare them to these 1-inchers which Alan sold.